#2

            As Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, once said, “Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.” In Paine’s time, this was intended for British conservatives who wanted the colonies to remain a fringe part of Great Britain. The colonists comprehensively laid out their grievances in the Declaration of Independence, listing every instance of how they felt manipulated and mistreated by the British government. In spite of the vast array of valid reasons for seeking independence, the British were not willing to simply grant this to the colonists. To gain their freedom, the colonists had to declare war.

Nowadays, the same dead-end described by Paine can be applied to arguing with conservatives whose views will not budge even slightly, even in the face of clear, compelling scientific evidence. Someone who is well-educated and capable of understanding breaks in science may still not trust the discipline because of their political alignment with a party that distrusts science and allots to them more money or power. The support behind a scientific theory can grow and solidify until it really can’t be denied anymore, but someone who is simply unwilling to hear it for other reasons will continue to deflect reason. Unlike the colonists, however, scientists cannot wage war on those who are too stubborn to hear valid points; newer, craftier means of establishing their truths in society must be innovated.

The pen is supposedly more powerful than the sword. Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, did not corroborate this, but perhaps the way he went about writing it did not maximize persuasion. Journalism today is geared at being generalized to accommodate all audiences. To entice educated conservatives to read science writing and at least open their minds to the possibility of some of it being true, maybe science writing has to be handled much more carefully. A less one-sided article may appeal more to readers whose stances lie on both ends of the spectrum, and to the moderates as well. If an article presents a scientific finding, then gives fair representation to any rebuttals that have surfaced against that finding and allows scientists to address the rebuttals, perhaps faith in science by more skeptical groups will begin to strengthen. The greater implications of the scientific finding for humanity should also be discussed from both perspectives. Stem-cell research has the potential to cure a lot of sick people, but it also compromises what others believe to be innocent lives. The strongest way to attain the trust of both sides is to let them know that their views are considered—in that way, perhaps each science article should encompass its own mini-debate.

If science writers can begin to bear this in mind about their audience, maybe scientists can as well. A scientist who does not belittle those who are less trusting in science has a better chance of overcoming their reservations.