The Curious Problem of "Truth"

Have you ever listened to a lecture on a scientific subject and been amazed by what is known, only to be flabbergasted when you read an article in the local newspaper on the same lecture? An hour-long teaching session on known facts becomes a 5-paragraph argument between scientists who never knew each other. Well, this article makes the bold claim that journalism and scientific inquiry are mutual antagonists when searching for trust, the former always looking to present "balance" between dissenting views and the former always looking for consensus. The writer then makes the unfortunate decision of applying his analysis to some of the most controversial subjects of our time.

Gold’s piece was hard-hitting but accurate. The scientific consensus is quite firm that abortion does not cause breast cancer. If reporters want to take science and its conclusions seriously, their reporting should reflect this reality — no matter what anti-abortionists say...But what happened next illustrates one reason journalists have such a hard time calling it like they see it on science issues. In an internal memo exposed by the Web site LAobserved.com, the Times’s editor, John Carroll, singled out Gold’s story for harsh criticism, claiming it vindicated critics who accuse the paper of liberal bias.

The point is well taken, whether you are pro- or anti-abortion. Sometimes in search of giving the public a balanced view of a subject - essentially trying to give laymen as broad a view as possible of subjects that only specialists can understand in depth - news organizations can oversimplify or make fringe elements seem as credible as the mainstream. As a former student of physics, I regularly cringe at the explanation given of quantum mechanics by the mainstream press. And yet, I am sure a PhD in the subject would cringe at my explanations as well.



What it comes down to is the difficult nature of truth, and that fact that it is possible to arrive at truths from different directions. The scientific world searches for truth by adhering to exacting methodologies, getting together many highly educated people, and letting them argue it out until a strong majority begins to believe one side is correct. Yet, we all know majorities are not always right - just ask the pre-Gallileo world whether the sun or the earth was the center of the universe. On the other hand, the journalistic world seeks to find truth by contrasting the different sides, and letting the audience make its own decision. This method trusts that the individual, given enough facts and viewpoints, will be able to discern the Right on his/her own. Unfortunately, we know this is not always the way to truth either. The Left still wonders how so many Americans still believe Sadaam ordered 9/11. The Right still wonders how so many Americans believe that diplomacy could have helped to topple the Taliban. And there are other approaches to truth. The religious which attempts to either analyze the lives and words of past righteous figures. The spiritualists who attempt to "feel" and "experience" their way to ultimate truth. The legal profession which believes two passionate defenders of a single idea or person can guide a jury to the truth.



The fact is, there is no easy way to guide each individual to truth. And what we "know" today will be disproven tomorrow. Truth does exist, but human minds don't find it easily. Especially when it contradicts some view of themselves.