Society abounds with people whose opinions are shaped by trivial instances of nudging. However, there is a minority of people who are unshakeable and are blessed with a cognitive ability to see everything with a pinch of salt and assess subjects through a prism of scientific curiosity and rigour. Our brain is lazy in cross-checking facts, as it involves expending energy, and energy for the brain is a valuable resource. Therefore, knowing facts and analysing statistics to form judgements is a prerequisite for a well-informed society.
A few members of the public, owing to their ability of better assessing situations and put forth their opinions, are in usual parlance known either as scientists or philosophers. Both of them back their statements by solid research, with replicable results. With this aura, they can contribute opinion pieces to reputed newspaper. Therefore, a scientist is also expected to be open to criticism with humility. This is important as these people make the public rethink their beliefs.
Well, this article highlights traits of that proportion of scientists who regard themselves in high respect, with a hollow public following. They try to foray into uncharted territories expecting that people would believe in anything they say because of their glimmering doctorates. They write about their alleged ‘discoveries’ as opinion pieces in newspapers purportedly to pass on to the general public directly. These discoveries often rest on unfounded assumptions and are narrated by raconteurs. Such (un)scientific writing in the dailies bolstered by agreeable folks leads to a confirmation bias. Writing in one’s domain is accepted fluidly amongst masses while proving yourself to be a multitude of experts calls for a jack of all trades, master of none. These ‘experts’ write opinions using a complex web of intricate scientific words in quick succession to attract the reader and turn him blind towards alternative possibilities. I do not doubt their super-active brains that crave information all the time.
What their brain fails to fathom is, there is a difference between cursory understanding and in-depth analysis. Such people also probably are victims of Armchair Quarterback Syndrome, which is a psychological condition of pretending to have expertise when there is none. When in public debate, such people pass combative arguments and are self-assertive, possibly ranking their cognitive ability to be greater than it is. Such debates are often one-sided. They are blind towards their blindness. They do not realise when they cross the thin line that exists between a scientist and a preacher, where the latter tries to persuade others into believing in them and turn to prosecutors by negating any criticism towards the findings.
Adam Grant says “Our beliefs are like a pair of reality goggles, any disruptive opinion cracks them up”. It is at this time one turns defensive and dons up a shield goggle that will not contort the mind and keep the current view intact. People with such traits often bamboozle the public, without themselves knowing it.
