All Opinion pieces and Letters to the Editor reflect ONLY the thoughts of the writer, and not those of the Stratford Crier or its Editorial Board.
By Paul Oestreicher
False equivalencies — presenting two sides of an argument as if they hold equal merit, even when one side is not grounded in facts — erode public discourse and trust. Whether in discussions about climate change, vaccine safety, or political violence, this action has damaging consequences for how the public engages with science, policy, and reality.
They’ve always been a pet peeve, but I was especially irritated when I read Malcolm Gladwell’s interview with The New York Times about his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point. At first, I was delighted when he said, “I don’t have any great hesitation about saying I was wrong. If you’re reading a book that is 25 years old, stuff should be wrong. If you don’t recognize that the world has changed in 25 years, there’s something wrong with you.”
I couldn’t agree more. The world constantly shifts, and we must adapt our thinking to new evidence and circumstances. Gladwell’s humility in admitting his mistakes is refreshing, particularly in today’s polarized climate, where admitting fault is often seen as a weakness.
It’s what he said later that troubled me: “People increasingly want un-curated expertise. Now, does that sometimes create problems? Yeah, a lot of people didn’t take the Covid vaccine that should have, and died as a result. That’s really unfortunate. I am fully aware of what happens when you let a thousand flowers bloom. But I’m also aware that there is at times something beautiful about the fact that we are opening up access to people in a way we never did before.”
Unfortunate? It was tragic. It was political and medical malpractice. Millions died.
Yes, access to ideas is crucial, but without proper vetting or curation, it becomes dangerously easy for disinformation and propaganda to spread unchecked. The challenge is to balance the need for open dialogue with the responsibility to prevent the amplification of dangerous or unfounded claims.
The Politicization of Science
One of the most disheartening trends I’ve observed over the past few years is the politicization of science to the point of toxicity. A discipline rooted in creativity, curiosity, and fact-finding has become demonized; science is openly ridiculed, trivialized, and held in contempt. If not checked and reversed, this will have a growing impact on discovery, education, public health, and US competitiveness.
The idea of “trusting the science” is under attack. Public confidence in science — particularly biomedical science — has declined significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey revealed that only 27% of Republicans/lean Republican and 43% of Democrats/lean Democrat citizens have a great deal of confidence that medical scientists will act in the public’s best interest. This erosion of trust is partly due to the failure to communicate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.
Science, by its nature, is fallible and self-correcting. It evolves as new evidence emerges. This is its greatest strength, but to the public, it can often seem like inconsistency or unreliability. This was evident during the pandemic when evolving guidance on social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccines was often met with confusion and skepticism.
Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, has expressed regret that officials didn’t adequately convey that recommendations would evolve as new information emerged during the pandemic. This failure to communicate the provisional nature of scientific knowledge only deepened public distrust. For many, the changing advice felt like dishonesty rather than the natural course of scientific discovery. This misunderstanding about the nature of science created a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation.
And it will not get better. Not in the next four years, anyway. The public should be angry, even terrified, that the new Administration is scrapping objective science and public health initiatives.
Social media platforms have given, should I say, a booster shot to the amplification of numerous scientific falsehoods. Elon Musk’s behavior on his X (formerly Twitter) is particularly troubling. According to a recent New York Times analysis, nearly a third of Musk’s posts in a five-day period were found to be false or misleading. X enables conspiracy theories and misinformation to spread unchecked. While Musk claims to support free speech, the reality is that false information spreads faster and reaches more people than the truth. Even when others attempt to correct the record, a debunked conspiracy post sits alongside a credible one, and for many people, it all looks the same.
Reclaiming the Narrative
The public’s trust in science shouldn’t’t rest on believing in specific experts or static truths; rather, it should be grounded in understanding the scientific process itself. As Dr. Art Caplan, the head of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, explained, trust in science requires belief not only in the message but in the process that generates it. Caplan argued that scientists need to better explain their work with accessible language, relevant examples, and local engagement through schools, community organizations, and grassroots efforts. This is key to rebuilding public confidence.
I used to believe that presenting solid evidence would be enough to convince people of the facts. But I’ve come to understand that facts alone are not enough when false equivalencies dominate the conversation. The truth is that not all opinions deserve the same weight.
At the same time, we must hold those with power and influence accountable. Whether it’s Elon Musk spreading false information or Malcolm Gladwell embracing un-curated content, the truth matters. If we cannot differentiate between what is factual and what is false, we are in serious trouble.
So yes, I agree with Gladwell that more voices should be heard, but I cannot follow him down the path of always accepting unfiltered content as part of the solution. If anything, we need to take more care and responsibility in communicating the facts. Because right now, the stakes are too high to get this wrong.
You have made a valid point, unfortunately.
What you refer to as “amplification” is essentially an echo chamber—a figurative space where beliefs are magnified, reinforced, and repeated within a closed system. Driven by algorithms, echo chambers prioritize information that supports and confirms existing biases while dismissing alternative viewpoints – potentially creating a single-minded and dangerous environment. As one who professionally studies this phenomenon, research indicates the echo chamber effect appears within individual media platforms (i.e., X, Facebook, etc.). The echo chamber effect works against seeking vetted information from multiple perspectives to make informed decisions.
Please consider posting your Op-Ed on X and submitting it to the CT Post, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal, even if you believe it may not be published. While most may not read it, if just one person who truly needs to see it does, you will have succeeded. Change begins with small steps. Thank you for your Op-Ed.
I don’t understand how even the people who trump said he loved “the poor educated” would ever believe a person who has no experience in a field. Would anyone believe that a cook would give you a better answer to an automative issue than and auto mechanic ? Would anyone have a carpenter work on a plumbing problem? Would you trust a painter to fit you for shoes? If the answer is no to these simple examples. Why would you listen to the advise of a politician over the medical advise of an experience health care professional, about vaccines?