In a recent Guardian article entitled “The Trouble with Trusting Complex Science,” an apparently self-avowed anti-corporatist writer (“despite my iconoclastic, anti-corporate instincts . . .” (a quote from the 10th paragraph of the article cited)) George Monbiot, discusses the frustration of dealing in facts when debating the climate change controversy. He describes how efforts to convince climate change disbelievers are often frustrated in spite of the facts presented. As a fan of facts, I can feel George’s frustration, although he and I may be on opposite sides of the climate change issue.
But the issue of climate change aside, what I want to comment on is his belief in truth and facts to make an argument. He and I are in sync on that and if you read this blog regularly you will understand what I mean.
From the theme of his article, it appears that George is very interested in the proper portrayal of reality, but yet he lets that reality take a bit of a walk in the third paragraph of an article that discusses journalistic integrity. In referring to journalistic castigations of climate scientists as an “attack on climate scientists” and as a “widening to an all-out war on science,” George makes a bit of an attack himself. Not on climate scientists, mind you, but he makes an attack on reality. He says in the third paragraph:
Views like this can be explained partly as the revenge of the humanities students. There is scarcely an editor or executive in any major media company – and precious few journalists – with a science degree, yet everyone knows that the anoraks are taking over the world.
Just so you know and I understand, I had to look up “anoraks.” We here in the U.S. would call that a parka. But that, of course, isn’t what troubles me.
What troubles me is that for an apparent champion of the truth, George makes a blanket, unsupported statement about the paucity of science degrees held by journalists and does so without reference to a source. He pins his argument, that climate change science is being “poo-pooed” by unqualified persons, on a statement that is itself unqualified, and without demonstrating that those opponents themselves are unqualified. And this is a key point in his overall argument. Sure, if it was just a passing comment, I would understand the passage not being sourced. But it’s not a passing comment. His article turns on this passage.
How do I know? How do I know if there is or isn’t a paucity of science degrees in major media companies and/or in their news rooms? Is the reader to take as true, and on trust, what George says about the lack of science degrees in the news room?
The proliferation of science degrees in the news room isn’t what’s important here in this post. What’s important is the proper representation of reality and the integrity of a valid argument. As a reader, if you want me to take credence from your argument, then please present me some facts, especially on key points.
