Science and the ‘Two versus One’ debates

You are here:
< Back

The 21st century will see the rise of the ‘2 versus 1’ debates, wherein the supposedly ‘impartial’ host of a debate appears to take sides, hence what should be a ‘1 versus 1’ debate becomes ‘2 versus 1’. The main reason for this is that the host/chairman is adopting a supposedly scientific stance due to the increasingly dominant role of science as we move towards a science based dictatorship. I am not opposed to science and ‘experts’, providing they are genuinely expert with genuine scientific facts, but science has always been corrupted by Politics and Business and Religion. A good way of telling a lie or of winning an argument is to get a ‘trusted expert’ to deliver the lie or to make the argument, e.g. the famed physicist Stephen Hawking was deemed an ‘expert’ on the Brexit debate according to the British PM David Cameron who recruited Hawking for his ‘remain’ campaign.

2 versus 1 debates tend to occur when one side appears to have the support of science, or at least the support of the ‘science consensus’. Note- a consensus of opinion is not a science fact. There are plenty of examples of the scientific consensus getting it wrong. ‘Soft science’, as opposed to ‘Hard Science’, is so-called because scientific proof is harder to come by, e.g. psychology and any study of human behaviour.

I saw a 2 versus 1 debate on the BBC’s news channel – to be precise – the current affairs show “The Victoria Derbyshire Show”, in which the dangers of immunisation were debated. You won’t be surprised to hear that the BBC host (not Victoria Derbyshire, but a replacement) adopted the view of the ‘scientific consensus’ that immunisation was basically safe, hence the host constantly interrupted the anti-immunisers to tell them their views weren’t factual or weren’t aligned with the stance of the World Health Organisation. The pro-immuniser didn’t have to argue much because the BBC host did her arguing for her!

The ‘centre ground’ of Politics is increasingly adopting a more science based approach, independent from opinions. Political ‘Think Tanks’ are also keen to promote their supposed independence from any particular party or philosophy, e.g. MARY ANN SIEGHART, chairman of the ‘centrist’ think tank, the SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION, boasted of its’ independence from political parties. Sieghart has been a newspaper journalist. She presented a BBC Radio 4 program: “Can The Centre Hold?”

In the future, opinions will be shunned, maybe even outlawed if they challenge the official view.

Please follow and like us:
follow subscribe - Science and the 'Two versus One' debates