A different view of environmental issues, a 3 part essay in the 5 December 2008 Newsletter of The Scientific Alliance, includes a useful discussion of objectivity. They conclude that we must all be able to recognize and accept facts, whether or not they support our arguments, and regardless of the source. I heartily agree, but place emphasis on the need for facts based on considerable research, not speculation based on one poorly done study. I also appreciate their discussion of mutagenesis (I’m hoping to post on the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reccomendations soon).
The impossibility of objectivity
Too often, disagreements on any issue – including scientific ones – are a dialogue of the deaf. It is rare indeed for two people with radically opposed views to be prepared to listen or accept that there may be nuggets of truth in their opponent’s arguments. This does not just apply to activists with a firm belief in a particular cause, it is also characteristic of professional scientists who we might naively expect to behave better. The reason for this is simple. We all have inbuilt world views and biases, and they inevitably colour our judgement, however objective we strive to be. We talk about scientific facts, but (at the risk of sounding too post-modernist) many of these are based on a particular accepted interpretation of the available evidence. Scientists should always strive to be objective and base their conclusions on hard data. As the newly-fashionable Keynes said “when the facts change, I change my mind”. But the human mind all too often does not work like that. Consciously or unconsciously, we tend to look for evidence which supports our own views, and ignore or devalue contrary observations. (more…)
What follows is the second in my series of responses to Greenpeace’s True Food Guide 
