Elitism has come under fire since the recent wave of populist politics. But when we don't listen to experts, we end up listening to politicians' lies, says Richard Dawkins.
You want expert pilots to fly your planes, top doctors to perform your surgeries, the finest musicians in your orchestra, and for the same reason, you should want experts leading the nation, says Richard Dawkins. There has been a backlash against expert knowledge amid the rising wave of populist politics, but Dawkins doesn't think elitism is the dirty word that people are implying. He contends that not all opinions are equal, and that the leaders of the UK were profoundly misguided in allowing a referendum on Brexit to occur. No average citizen—not even Dawkins himself—was fit to decide on whether to leave a federation of states with so much economic and political importance, and decades of complex history attached to it. And much like the 2016 US presidential election, it was a political movement fueled by misinformation. A representative democracy is one thing, where citizens entrust experts to make national and local decisions, but a referendum democracy seems to Dawkins extremely ill-advised, particularly given that the top Google search in the UK the day after the Brexit vote was 'What is the European Union?'. Dawkins isn't shy: he's an elitist, but a rational one. He affirms he would never want a world where your IQ determines how many votes you get, but he sees the clear benefit of making political decisions based on knowledge rather than emotion or misinformation, deliberate or otherwise. Richard Dawkins' newest book is Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist.
Reading popular science articles is a fun pastime for many people, and can help everybody understand the world of science. But is there a downside to making this information so easy to understand?
We live in an interesting time. The number of people who today openly question reality are not the tin-foil hat-wearing kind. Increasingly they are our friends, and those who hold positions of power. Indeed, the public understanding of what constitutes valid evidence, and a worthy expert opinion, seems to be at an all time low.
But how did this happen? Why is it that with so much information available, we seem to be so bad at figuring out the truth? Well, a new study suggests that this wealth of information might be the problem.
A new study out of Germany has found that people are much more confident in the claims of a popular science article then they are in the claims of an academic article written for experts, even when the topics are similar. And that this can have negative side effects for how they view expert opinions, even long after the fact.
In the study, subjects from a wide variety of educational backgrounds were asked to read either a popular science article or an article intended for experts. They were then asked about how much they agreed with the claims of the article and how credible the articles seemed. The subjects tended to view the popular articles with more agreement than they did with the expert articles, despite not finding the popular articles to be any more credible.
It was also found that the subjects were more confident in their own judgments after reading a popular article, and that this was tied to a lessened desire to seek out more information from expert sources. This tendency has a name, the "easiness effect”, and has been studied for years by psychologists.
But why is this?
The researchers suggest that the issue arises from the manner in which popular science is presented; as opposed to how scientists themselves present data to each other and to the public. While popular media sites tend to condense data into well edited, understandable, and quite certain sounding chunks; academic papers make constant mention of likelihoods, margin of errors, and the probable way things are. With the researchers noting the comprehensibility of an article being a major factor for many readers and how much they agreed with it, saying:
“Our results also confirm that popularized articles were perceived as being more comprehensible than scientific articles, supporting the notion that the observed genre differences in laypeople’s agreement with the claim and their judgment confidence were indeed brought about by differences in processing ease”.
The study goes on to suggest that consuming popular science leads people to underestimate the importance of having experts in the pursuit of knowledge. This emboldens people to reject the ideas of experts who they see as superfluous to their understanding of an idea (which they have already grasped).
Another interesting interpretation of this is the idea that people demand a certainty from science that experts know they cannot have. As such, they turn to popular works which remove details of margins of error and probabilities rather than experts who temper their knowledge for the sake of accuracy. The studies on this subject have, however, tended to stay near subjects of immediate concern and use to the common reader, notably health. It could still be asked if the possible negative effects of reading too much popular science would apply in all fields.
Does having greater access to expert findings — presented by journalists and commentators — make us less likely to believe scientific results? This study appears to suggest so. Is pop science to blame for this? Is our ability to easily articulate the findings of science doing a disservice to it? The research is still new enough that a solid answer doesn’t exist yet. But it does mean that popular science articles, like this one, might have to start calculating for the effect they may have on their readers.