This was written after a Read to Write session on the poetry of Michael Rosen.
I have issues with the idea that all opinions are somehow equal.
Get One of Each On
Welcome, said the presenter, to The Big Debate. Today, she said,
we will debate Climate Change.
On my right, Professor Jane Doublefirst of Oxford University,
who has 25 years' experience in Climate Science in the
public and private sectors, arguing the case for green energy.
On my left, Dave Straightspeaker from Basildon, who thinks Global
Warming is nonsense peddled by do-gooding lefties.
Got to be impartial, they said. Get one of each on.
Welcome, said the presenter, to The Big Debate. Today, she said,
we will debate Vaccination.
On my right, Dr. Jim Needles, who has 30 years' experience
in Vaccinology in the public and private sectors, and has written
several books on the elimination of diseases worldwide.
On my left, Karen Redditontwitter, from Derby, who thinks vaccines
give you autism and have poison and microchips in.
Got to be impartial, they said. Get one of each on.
Welcome, said the presenter, to The Big Debate. Today, she said,
we will debate Immigration.
On my right, Lady Pamela Bright, who came to the UK as a child
in the 1950s and has spent 40 years working in immigration law and
has written international articles on the benefits of immigration.
On my left, Sir Jeffrey Littlebrain, MP for Home County South, who thinks
Britain is full and we let in criminals and they're on benefits and taking British
jobs.
Got to be impartial, they said. Get one of each on.
Welcome, said the presenter, to The Big Debate. Today, she said,
we will debate The Holocaust....
Tim Fellows 2020
I would agree that not all opinions are equal. But should this prevent open polite debate between adherents of different views on a topic? This would allow the views to be explored, with evidence and analysis presented for the views (assuming that a topic can be distilled into just two – or a few – different views). The validity of the evidence and analyses presented can then be tested “in open court”.
ReplyDeleteIf a view is to be excluded from debate then who is to do the excluding? May that person have a bias agaist one or more of the views? Is one way to eliminate the effects of any such bias to allow the varied views to be debated without censorship?
Yes, it's tricky. But if there are 99 scientists saying that climate change is man-made and real, and 1 saying not (for whatever reason), putting the two cases up against each other one-on-one gives the appearance of equal weight. Or worse still, the person arguing one side has no real knowledge of the subject (often a politician) but knows how to inflame the crowd. Facts become lost in a sea of lies and polite debate becomes impossible.
Delete