Blog Prompt #6

Blog Prompt #6

We often follow our gut when we make decisions.  When I was offered an assistant professor position at Ursinus in 2002, I accepted it over other offers because it felt right, in my gut.  Eleven years later: I love my job and I’m certain I did the right thing by following my gut (thank you, gut!).  You may have based your decision to come to Ursinus on the very same gut reaction. 

There are, however, other types of decisions where following your gut may not be the best mode of action.  Like those where science has something to say, such as:  Should I lease my land to Acme Gas for hydraulic fracturing?  Should I get a flu shot?  Should I eat less Cheetos?  Should I wash my hands before I eat Cheetos?  If I take green coffee bean supplements, can I eat more Cheetos?  Should I get more sleep?  Is it safe to eat genetically modified foods?  How about that apple juice in Wismer – should I worry about its arsenic levels?  Should I take my umbrella today as I walk over to Wismer?

In class yesterday, Dean Winegar introduced Stephen Colbert’s concept of “truthiness.”  (If you missed class or need a refresher, watch this).  In this week’s blog post, discuss the extent to which you rely on truthiness to make decisions in your life in which science has something to say.  Then consider whether you, as a science writer, should base your stories solely on the truth (as far as you can tell), or whether it is acceptable/responsible/ethical to write in a manner that is merely truthy.  Why might science writers sometimes choose to tell the truthiness?  Consider how the substitution of truthiness for truth in the media might affect the sorts of decisions individuals, policy makers, and corporations make.  

Truthiness has its importance in what we do, unquestionably. Its sometimes the best way that we can make a decision; to take the road less traveled or to follow the pack, to attempt something new based on a gut feeling that its the right things to do. We all convey information in whatever way we believe to both get the information across the most clearly and to be as believable as we can - even this is an aspect of truthiness. And truthiness in writing can be a good thing; the things we are truthy about are the ones that we believe in the most strongly. But theres a very important, very small word in that sentence; can. Conviction that ones own views on something are right is one of the definitions of "truthiness"... and the majority of the groups that champion vaccine exacerbated autism are being truthy in their portrayal of the facts. And as opinion, thats alright... some of the time. If you're spouting off about the actual state or caused of disorders or diseases, then you should be certain that you at least have hard, conclusive data to support your position - and I stress position. Even if you have that supporting data, without secondary proof or secondary study, you have posed no more than a hypothesis.

So yes, as science writers and as writers in general we have the responsibility to ensure that our writing is not only "truthy" but supported by truth, data, and the american way. By which I mean it needs to have independent verification by a neutral source to be even counted as a theory, much less convincing "truth". We all make assumptions on science, or at least I know that I do. When we hear something that sounds improbable, or like theres no way that our knowledge of science can support it, the general response is either "bullshit" or "No way, that cant be true." We all have a tendency to apply our own truthiness to things, especially when they are things that we dont know a great deal about. It is acceptable to write in a truthy manner. It falls under ethical so long as you arent telling people that "this is the truth absolutely, I am the voice of all things scientific, I am Oz, the great and powerful!" or anything of the sort. So long as we science writers couch our writings with the reality "we are making a series of educated guesses based on what we know, the information that has been revealed to us, our own conclusions, and the work of scientists", then it is legally, ethically, and morally responsible to put forth our findings and our writings.

Thats not to say its easy to be absolutely truthful and straightforward, especially with an audience. If we couch things in pure data, people are going to get bored and not want to read it. That means we have to simplify and make things interesting. If we do that, then our writing is no longer entirely scientific or entirely true, necessarily, but we can only do the best we can. Its easier to keep a stable of readers with the truthiness than it is to keep them with the science, especially when sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. This could affect any number of things as people who read our writings make decisions of policy, corporate direction, research, and even employment based on what we simplify, synthesize, and put forward for them to look at. If we keep things as close to the truth as possible, rather than as close to the truthiness, then we ensure that at the very least, those who make these decisions are well informed, and able to make these decisions based upon their own truthiness, and not a twisted version of truthi-falsehood that comes from twisting our chain of truthiness and assumptions into a mobius strip of information interpreted in different ways or assumptions based upon other assumptions. Truth is what we need to attempt to keep to - truthiness is all well and good, but in the end, like Jenny McCarthy, its all opinion.