August 31, 2012
Yet again, the BBC gave airtime this morning to the scaremongering Andrew Green. This raises the point that there is adverse selection in political debate: fanatics are given attention whilst sober, rational voices are overlooked.There are four channels through which this happens:
- Fanatics think their beliefs are so important and true that they set up lobbying groups and "thinktanks" to promote them, whilst rational people devote less time and organization to pushing their opinions.
.....
- Producers want "good" TV/radio, and this means having a violent debate between people with well-defined positions who can talk in soundbites. Why else does the silly Peter Hitchens get on air? This tends to squeeze out those who take evidence-based positions, as evidence is often messy and nuanced.
- People mistake confidence for knowledge, and so give too much credence to the irrationally overconfident.
- A tendency has emerged for people to respect strongly-held opinions; this is what gave us the law against religious hatred. This, of course, in the opposite of what should be the case. The fact that someone believes strongly in something is a reason for us to disrespect their belief and to discount it as the product of a fevered, fanatical and irrational mind.
===============================================
Right. Strongly believing something that is evil is not admirable. Holding onto a strong belief that has been proven wrong is not admirable. Just the opposite.
No comments:
Post a Comment