Cosmic Variance: The New Objectivity
(Science) Reporting as Truth vs. Falsity as opposed to He said vs. She said
If journalists are just mindless stenographers, they can’t be accused of making that particular mistake. But they are actually making a much more serious mistake, abandoning the search for truth in favor of the goal of not being blamed.
It’s hard to argue against this mindset, which is often mis-labeled as “objectivity.” So maybe we should be defending the New Objectivity: the crucial duty of reporters to separate what is true from what is false.
“And what is Truth?” asked jesting Pilate.
The principle is wrong. How is a reporter supposed to separate truth from falsity when the discipline he is reporting on my not know?
When the concept of continental drift was first floated, what should the reporters have said? Should they have supported the “Truth” as it was then known? The Consensus that continents didn’t move? Or report that there was a new theory that might not be wrong.
I note that this “New Objectivity” is nothing more than “Appeal to Authority” in disguise. Since a science reporter covers many fields it is impossible for him/her to follow the details of an individual science. So how are they supposed to separate “Truth” from “Falsity”? By asking the “Authorities” of course.
What a way to stifle innovation and free thought. Scientific debate will stop being about competing theories and become about competing personalities and groups.