EPTPeople like to argue, disagree, dispute, and make their voices heard. The objective is to convince the opposing side that their viewpoint is correct – a debate. With emerging internet culture, including discussion forums and the blogosphere, people are able to interact and “debate” freely like never before. Each individual has a potentially massive audience they may want to convince.
Hot topics of the day often include politics and science. Three issues can be used here to make my point: Tibet vs China, global warming/climate change, and the financial recession.
We gather news from a multitude of media outlets, but we have reached the point where pretty much all sources can ultimately be accessed online. News stories are still largely delivered via traditional news coverage organizations and professional reporters, although the trend may be towards increased amateur news reports through blogs or social networking systems. Again, the news organizations or any reporter is subject to bias.
Getting to Tibet vs China, the media coverage greatly bothers me. Western news reports too often paint native Tibetans and its spiritual leader the Dalai Lama as a holy, sacred, blessed pacifist figure. Dressing up in costume and flying around to countries to gather support by bowing, making overt gestures of hospitality, and shaking hands, is no more than assuming the role of a clown. Western media simply ignores the primary issue of violence against Han Chinese in Tibet by native Tibetans. The proper response by China, of course, is to crack down against this violence using force. There is simply no better way to resolve conflicts in certain situations than by force. It is unreasonable to expect no retaliation against violent attacks that can be likened to gang wars on the basis of race.
This is my perspective as an observer living in the western world. Yet the important thing is that no one really knows the full story. I am far removed from the actual event location. Say I became a reporter and flew over to report my observations. Would this be valuable? No, I don’t believe so, as I lack the full background knowledge, experience, and historical setting, which could only be gathered once again from old news reports. If I were to ask a Chinese police officer at the site, a native Tibetan, and a Han Chinese settler, they could all give absolutely honest recounts of their experiences to the best of their ability, and the stories could still be radically different. Whose version is the truth? They are all the truth. Sometimes such conflicts arise not because the parties do not understand one another, but because what they know as “facts” are inconsistent. I just find the western presentation of this issue so annoying, especially when they decide to judge parties based extensively on the stereotype of a smiling clown vs an evil communist behemoth.
Okay now I’ll move on to climate change. The subject has been endlessly debated, with no signs of dying down anytime soon. What the hell are people even making their decisions based on? I know most people who consider themselves liberal like to claim, “an overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is a real phenomenon.” What is a “climate scientist”? A climatologist? Meteorologist? Astronomer? Geologist? Geophysicist? I know that with enough digging and research, much more details and specifics can be supported and referenced. The problem is that probably 98% of people who voice their beliefs do not go through this extensive process of understanding where the “facts” are constructed. I say right now that I am one of those people who will not bother to go through that trouble. And few will; most just rely on the word of others.
The hard data for supporting or denying climate change claims is not as readily accessible to people as some seem to think. The scientists whose opinions we like to quote probably have limited access to the very specialized global data sets one would require to analyze the event. Furthermore, most of them would probably have little interest in it, even if they did have it in front of them, unless their job was specifically to research this subject. The major problem is that people draw conclusions without first hand understanding of the data’s meaning, but instead believe the names or ideas they’d like to be associated with. And it is perfectly acceptable to assume the position “not enough data to draw conclusion,” one nearly everyone belongs in. End of debate.
Just for the record, I am personally quite sceptical of the phenomenon just because of the suspicious political leanings that have been associated with it, and the seemingly immense bandwagoning of supporters that has allowed its unanimous consent status. Detractors should also be allowed a fair chance to analyze the data and form explanations, or at least allow the data to be accessible to a wider audience.
Regarding the financial recession, people like to talk about it as if it were a simple issue of party A was wrong by exploiting party B. But in fact, no one knows anything specific about the economy. Economics is not a science – it is an art. Models are made to allow predictions, but they will always be models and not true indicators of the actual thing. The economy is simply too complex and convoluted with contrived indicators for anyone to truly understand what is going on. So called “financial experts” are the epitome of con-artistry.
I have more to say on this topic, but I’ll save it for another post. So can the truth really be exhaustively comprehended? Perhaps, but only when the holes are identified and the sources are put in perspective.
Well there’s my rant for today. I got a new laptop and have no games installed on it, so I took the time to spew some drivel from my mind instead. I know lot of the sentiments are nothing new, but it takes something special to be mindblowing.
