Imagine tending to a very sick patient who was about to die. Imagine having, on one hand, a doctor or nurse working with the patient to make their remaining time as comfortable as possible, and comforting the family in their grief. On the other hand, you have a preacher telling that patient that they must immediately convert over to Jesus before they passed away, unless they wanted to go to Hell. Who would you choose?
Or imagine going to university, taking geology or botany or zoology, and having two classes for each subject – one that presented the scientific view, and the other threatening students that they must deny evolution and accept an 8,000 year old Earth, in order to pass their final exams.
Not appropriate, right? But this is the problem we seem to be increasingly facing these days – one of ideology over expertise.
There was a debate on the radio a few days ago where there two worlds came clashing together in an interesting way. The subject was vaccinations. On the one hand, you had people arguing from scientific and medical perspective, while on the other hand, you had people with strongly anti-vaccination worldviews. (They prefer to call themselves “vaccine informed, but let’s call a spade a spade, shall we? In the end, it amounts to the same thing).
If you were a parent, concerned about nasties such as whooping cough, rubella, measles and the flu, whose advice should you listen to? Your doctor, who, has the training, clinical expertise and direct experience working in the community with patients? Or perhaps some random person with none of this experience who tells you to ignore or distrust the doctors, that they are all shills or dupes, that they have done all their research on the Internet and are therefore more knowledgeable?
This is the choice that people have. And it should be a no-brainer. In fact, for decades it has been a no-brainer. Most people wouldn’t even think about going for the ideologue over the trained expert.
But it seems this is not as much the case today. More people choosing the naturopath over their doctor, choosing detox over vaccines and choosing all sorts of fad diets so they can avoid cancer and live forever. In certain areas, ideology is starting to win over expertise.
Much of it is marketing. Ideologues are getting better at exploiting hopes and fears. There are certain messages they put across that have an emotional impact. Tell people Big Pharma is out to get them. Tell them they only care about profits and not health. Tell them that there are poisons and chemicals being injected into their children. Tell them there is another way, and that it’s being suppressed. Tell them about the brave lone pioneers who have been castigated for their views. These are powerful, emotive messages that can be applied to any situation. They do not need facts to support them, just half-truths, glimmers of hope and a large dollop of fear.
Experts are to be distrusted, according to the ideologues. Experts, particularly individual experts, can sometimes get things wrong, so the ideologues use that against them. Knowledge is often incomplete, as is the way with science, so ideologues will exploit the gaps in knowledge for their own purposes. Companies sometimes do unethical things, so ideologues will use this to portray them in the worst possible light.
But let’s not kid ourselves – when it comes to a fight between expertise and ideology, expertise wins. It has the facts on its side. Just maybe not the marketing.
I think you overstate the issue. The vast majority of people are not choosing quacks over expertise. Nor should one extrapolate too much from the airtime the anti-vaxxers and the like get on radio chat-shows: a lot of the latter’s stock-in-trade is whipping up controversy and they will unearth miscellaneous weirdos and charlatans to help them get an argument going. I’m confident that most people have the good sense to see where their best interests lie. There will always be exceptions of course and even some of the smartest people have been known to ignore medical science in favour of one brand of another of snake oil. Steve Jobs is one such example.
I’m bemused by the odd scenario set out in your opening paragraph – “on the other hand, you have a preacher telling that patient that they must immediately convert over to Jesus before they passed away, unless they wanted to go to Hell”.
The word “preacher” conjures up an image of some holy-roller firebrand in some obscure backwater of the American Bible Belt. It certainly has no resonance with the reality of the situation in an Irish (or Western European) context.I have never heard of any priest or minister threatening a dying patient with the fires of Hell unless he/she converted to Jesus. Given that the scenario is totally at odds with the actual reality why raise it at all? It just smacks of being a cheap shot at religion and one that misses the mark by a mile. It doesn’t help your argument.
John, I did not say that I think these views are held by a majority of people, or even a large minority. I absolutely accept that a large majority of people are acting sensibly and I said as much when I talked about it being a no-brainer. However, vaccination rates are declining – down to 85% in some places, which, sure, is still a big majority, but still enough to cause serious public health issues.
On the point about the preacher, did you read the second paragraph where I talked about two university courses? Now where on Earth does that happen? I was being deliberately metaphorical in both paragraphs, and yes, my intent was *exactly* to conjure up some bible thumping screaming Jesus from the Deep South. The aim was to say “not appropriate”, and not as a shot at common garden ‘sorry for your troubles, I’m sure he’s in a better place’ religion. Sorry to belabour this but others have mentioned the same and they too have completely missed the point. Or I’m crap at metaphors, which I will also accept.