Science, the Internet, and Why I Ought to do a PhD

[March 27, 2010] Who could have imagined that truth would need defending? A few years ago, I certainly couldn't. But today, I can. And that’s why I ought to do a PhD. As a communications professional, I feel I have something to contribute.

I’ve spent more than a decade working in the communications industry and I’ve been fortunate to observe first hand the rise of the Internet and the democratization of information it has brought about. The rapid ascent of the Internet has fascinated me considerably, especially the role social media has come to play in the dissemination of information.

I believe information should be decentralized; therefore, I am the first person to assert this development is positive. But I am deeply troubled by the misuse and abuse this decentralization can facilitate. As with everything else in life, decentralization has its flaws.

In addition to my professional life as a Web Strategist and Information Architect, I have a passion for the natural and social sciences (most, if not all, of my extracurricular readings concern politics, geoscience, physics, and other, related, fields). And it’s at the intersection of science and the Internet that my concern is grounded.

To understand why, one needs first to acknowledge a fundamental truth about scientific information: it’s complicated. This is a significant problem in a world where recently invented terms such as “Internet ADD” attempt to explain why a growing number of Internet users seem woefully incapable of digesting information unless it’s compressed into a 140-character Twitter message. And let’s face it, even Stephen Hawking cannot explain Quantum Theory in anything less than a Tumblr post.

What I mean is that for all the benefits the Internet has brought us, it has also set in motion a trend that, in some cases, has negatively impacted the spread of science and reason. I’d even go so far as to say that it has benefited some pseudo-scientific, irrational, and/or false assertions made by proponents of ideas ranging from homeopathy to climate-change denial.

This is nothing new, of course. The spread of scientific information has always been obstructed by the fact that it’s more complicated than the “alternatives” (e.g. Evolution vs. Creationism, Science-Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine). Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) put it best when he wrote: “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect.”

What Mr. Swift is saying is this: it’s easy for, say, a peddler of homeopathic remedies to declare that his wares can cure almost any illness (just take his word for it; he’s seen it work hundreds of times!). But it’s much harder—nay, impossible!—for a scientist to make a similar claim or even to disprove the homeopath’s claim. Because whereas the homeopath can get away with a Twitter message, the scientist needs to publish a white paper to prove him wrong.

It’s not hard to see how concepts like “Internet ADD” can and do tip the scale in favor of these “simpler alternatives”—leaving the scientist and, more importantly, the truth, at a significant disadvantage. This is not an isolated phenomena. It has, in fact, happened so often that an entire subculture—“Skepticism”—has developed with the sole purpose of defending scientific truth.

Who could have imagined that truth would need defending? A few years ago, I certainly could not have imagined such an eventuality. But today, I can. And that’s why I should do a PhD. As a communications professional—especially one focusing on the Internet and social media—I feel I have something to contribute to this topic. And a research fellowship would allow me to devote time and energy to questions such as:

How is scientific knowledge and other forms of analytical information disseminated today, and how will it be disseminated tomorrow?
What are the primary drivers and obstacles to this dissemination; are they ideological, technological, or environmental?
What, if anything, can be done to promote science and reason in the future? Are there practices and/or tools we can use to “level the playing field.”

To find answers to these questions, I imagine the researcher—whoever he or she might be—will need to delve into topics ranging from neuroscience to design, from sociology to technology. This will take a lot of time and effort and, to be perfectly honest, the task humbles me. But I feel it is an effort well worth making. And to really bring that point home, I’ll conclude with one of my favorite quotes:

“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Science is awesome, and I’d like to keep it that way.

Just read your post at SGU and thought I’d feedback you a little. I don’t have any specific answers to your questions, just a few general thoughts for the time being.
As you no doubt can see, the “mainstream media” is fast disintegrating and within a few decades will be unrecognizable. Even now most Americans under the age of 25 get most of their news from so-called “new media”: blogs, websites, maybe cable news, all of which self-select for content and political leanings. I fear this has created a serious bifurcation in the land, not only along ideological lines, but even along scientific ones.
There is no way to censor content on the web, even if it were deemed desirable to do so (and I sure don’t). But it would be nice to find some even-tempered voices out there to moderate the growing din.
Good luck with your PhD!

In every field of study today, objective or subjective, the inmates seem to be ruling the asylum. I look around me and conclude that intellectual curiosity, the spirit of inquiry, critical thinking and analysis have all become obsolete. True, technology has placed powerful communication tools in the hands of the common man – but in response, the common man has decided he already knows all the answers – and proceeds to use those tools to validate his own narrow worldview. Who needs a four-year degree or white papers when you can yell your (latest) conspiracy theory as loud as you can online and have a million like yourself join in the chorus?

On the other hand, democracy (whether as a system of government or in the realm of communication) is a good thing, or perhaps the least bad thing. But new democracies must go through their inevitable hiccups and growing pains, and the Internet is no exception. Here in India, we used to worry how effective “one-man-one-vote” could be, when the votes of millions of illiterate and impoverished people could be easily bought. Time has proven that India’s freewheeling democracy works very well indeed. Let’s hope the same thing eventually happens to the Internet, perhaps with a little help from your new PhD!

One quibble: all homeopaths are not quacks. Ours is an MD with a very successful practice and he’s kept our family healthy (and prescription drug-free) for years.