For the sake of balance...

Having been inspired by Mondays Infinite Monkey Cage programme on Radio 4... it got me to thinking if there is a place for balance in science, the telling of opposing views on the same subject. My initial thought was- of course science has balance, it is open to all views and all ideas, it is the way science moves forward. After a while I began to think, actually balance is not really the nature of science, and instead depends on at what point the current research has reached.

So let me explain myself... In new research, the theories and experiments formed are variable and often answering different questions. In this way, science is balanced, different research on the same subject is fairly viewed and reviewed and criticised. The difference is I suppose, that science is always moving toward an end point, a consensus. After a while, experimental design and results are confirmed by multiple sources, multiple times. I guess it's like a mist clearing, when through science we gain clarity. Although nothing is 'proved' in science, research overtime can lead us to the best possible explanation. So let's take 'global warming', the consensus among scientists is that a) the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, b) Increased CO2 in the atmosphere correlates to the earth warming and c)  Various human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This is commonly accepted by any reputable scientist, and by consensus, I mean a large majority, a majority so large that you would be hard pressed to find any scientist apposed to this theory.

When I think back to my GCSE English teacher explaining that we must be 'unbiased and present both sides of the story' I wonder whether we can ever really apply this to science. Of course this works in a medium such as newspaper and press but as I stated above, finding scientists apposed to the majority view is difficult, and is it really valuable anyway? This kind of conflict of views in science is often put to the test through the media. It seems to be a favourite of various News programs to create this so called balance. However, providing Dr xx of the department (unknown) of University of Timbuktu to debate with a reputable climatologist is hardly balance. Even worse, when they bring on an politically motivated, emotive speaker who clearly has no grasp of simple facts, which is often the way when it comes to climate change issues. I despair at the number of times I've watched modest, intelligent scientists calmly communicate the facts which are soon bulldozed by ignorant, self righteous and often very loud dimwits..... I'm left feeling... that's not fair. It's not fair because the public are being exposed to incorrect, unjustified views, this is not balance but instead quite harmful. This issue of a warming world as a result of human activity should be taken as red, not the 'what do you believe then?' attidude taken by many people in the public domain.

So I guess I'm answering my question to ' is there balance in science?' as- sometimes.... But more importantly, balance in the media when science is involved isn't really balance at all. Science is logical, theories are posed, experiments constructed, observations recorded and conclusions made. If research is still in its infancy then differing theories maybe argued but if there is numerous studies to suggest a key fact or aspect then with the use of logic a consensus will be formed. The problem comes with a new wave of media coverage that depicts 'science verses the world'. It is sciences responsibility to answer questions that everyone is wondering, even non-scientists. What I don't understand is when people are quite comfortable to sit in the knowledge that the earth is in fact round (information discovered by scientists) yet flip out when it comes to an issue such as 'global warming' purely because the implications of such an issue may mean they will have to change their own behaviours to prevent exacerbation of the situation.

An excellent tweet by Professor Brian Cox in response to dimwit A that questioned Prof. Cox's 'fanatical' view on man made global warming and how various 'eminents' disagreed. He simply replied 'Evidence dear boy. Scientists don't hold views, they just keep plugging away trying to understand the data. The rest is politics.' Views are for politicians, science is a celebration of reason. So instead of arguing with someone who clearly doesn't know the facts for the sake of balance I instead urge you to take a look at the evidence it really does speak for itself...