#6

In many ways I am a genuinely scientific person. I don’t doubt science on the basis of religion whatsoever; in fact, I don’t subscribe to any religion because I believe in the evidence that science has provided for its postulates. I follow the proper recycling protocols to the best of my knowledge to ensure energy efficiency, including being absolutely sure to separate a water bottle from its cap before discarding them in the recycling container. I believe in global warming, I don’t buy that vaccines cause autism, and I wouldn’t jump too quickly into the allure of hydraulic fracturing.

However, I also find myself sometimes accepting “truthiness” when it is convenient for me. It’s been scientifically proven that the plastic used to make water bottles can be carcinogenic if certain numbers are present in the label. I have never checked the label of a single water bottle I’ve ever drank because I don’t really care or believe that I will be affected, even though it is perfectly possible that I could. Most things that have been scientifically shown to be carcinogenic don’t bother me; I’m certainly not avoiding the microwave. My mindset is “everything causes cancer these days.”

Many of my favorite foods and snacks contain some kind of preservative or dye that has been shown to be harmful and are banned in many countries outside of the United States. Knowing this, I still proceed and eat them, because I enjoy eating them regardless of the risks they pose to me.

Most pets besides dogs and cats are really not meant to be domesticated. Still, reptiles fascinate me, so I’ve invested in geckos and snakes for pets before. Although it has been proven that the animals do not thrive as well as they would in the wild, because I want reptilian pets, I accept the “truthiness” that they’re just as good in captivity.

However, when writing, I would not allow my own personal breaches of science to spill into my words. This is completely unethical; “truthiness” is just a falsehood that you convince yourself is true for your own comfort and convenience. The “truthiness” I assert which makes me feel inclined to drink from any water bottle, eat foods with dangerous ingredients, and own exotic pets has no scientific backing; I could not defend it. Perhaps because it is journalism, I could admit to my own mistakes, but I would never pass them off as what people should be following.

Science writers might be inclined to tell truthiness because they are biased. If they want to convince people of one side of a controversial issue, they’ll use any evidence they can find, even if it isn’t actually scientific. Alternatively, it could be due to a lack of understanding. Not all science writers are scientists themselves; perhaps when a particular aspect of science just does not make sense to the writer, they’ll make their own inferences, leading to “truthiness.”

This is very dangerous to the rest of the world, as it leads to individuals, policy makers, and corporations feeling justified in certain things which they believe is supported by science. If Truthland convinced any skeptical gas companies that fracking is completely fine, they may go ahead and frack indiscriminately across the country. But what if in 20 years we find out for sure that fracking has some really terrible effects? Too late?

And what about people who don’t get vaccinated because they’re afraid of getting autism because they read it in some article or saw it on the news? Then they get some potentially lethal disease which hasn’t been dealt with in a long time and give it to everyone else who’s susceptible.

“Truthiness” must be kept out of science writing at all costs. If something is to receive the authenticity that comes with the branding by the name “science,” it must follow actual science.