Andrew Collins and homeopathy
I'm the perfect candidate to argue with Mr. Collins about homeopathy. I've always been a science-minded person, I've recently started a physics degree part time, and I've kept relatively up to date with the latest research and debate on the topic.
I don't want to though. And not because "it's pointless", or because "it's not worth the effort". I don't want to because, if I'm honest, I'm not entirely sure how.
From all the available evidence (I couldn't resist using the phrase), Andrew is a polite, intelligent, articulate man. He's always, within reason, been open to discuss his opinions, from homeopathy to the NME's coverage of Morrissey's slightly shameful appropriation of racist imagery.
Like anyone, in fact like all of us, he brings prejudices to any discussion. By his own admission, he's naturally suspicious of consensus and "power", by which I infer he means large corporate entities. This world view is not at all unusual, and not necessarily at all unreasonable either.
So why does "science" (and I hate to refer to a methodology as a group, or corporate entity) have such a difficult time putting its point across? One of the advantages of the internet is that we can see how lots of people choose to interact with each other. Some people are rude and dismissive of Collins' opinions, whereas some people engage politely. What I don't really see is any great understanding or empathy for the other side of the debate from the "scientists".
I find that slightly worrying. The communication of scientific concepts in generally not well done in the media today. Of course, the mainstream media are notoriously bad at misunderstanding, misrepresenting and downright distorting science in their reporting. Equally, there are plenty of nonsensical press releases from university departments, often financed by "big business", whose primary purpose is securing the sponsor's name in print. This clouds the issue, and doesn't help provide the intelligent layman with a framework to assess the news and views put in front of them,
Homeopathy? I can't say I'm that bothered about it. There's no evidence to suggest it works, and frankly it doesn't merit any more serious scientific attention (which is why it doesn't really get any these days). Is it a bit embarrassing that Boots sell it as an efficacious treatment? Yes. Would I rather that the NHS directed the millions it currently spends on homeopathy elsewhere? Yes.
However, I'm not about to take part in an organised "overdose" either. Frankly, I think that comes across as being a bit smug and condescending. There are indeed serious issues around the use of homeopathy, but it's far more important to address why we find ourselves unable to communicate what should be relatively simple concepts. It is a fine line between being forthright and arrogance.
Until we find a better way to express our perspective to people like Andrew, people who are happy to debate and discuss the issues at hand, news stories about the Large Hadron Collider ending the world will keep coming, and scientists will keep getting exasperated about them.
Any ideas?
