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.