Whenever there’s a political issue in the news, we almost always hear debates from the two sides: we hear from experts who support it and from experts who oppose it. But there’s someone missing from these debates. Isn’t it odd that they never include an expert who thinks the answer is uncertain?
If 10,000 experts support raising the minimum wage, and 10,000 oppose it, shouldn’t we expect another 10,000 who are uncertain about it? But have you ever seen a debate where someone is arguing passionately that we don’t have enough data to know the answer?
Political issues often start out looking pretty simple to me. But often, the deeper I dig into them, the trickier and more complex they look. I really do think that being highly uncertain is often the correct answer. But that perspective is frighteningly underrepresented. Isn’t it kind of scary when you think about it this way? Our society is not set up to show us uncertainty. It does everything it can to hide it.
And I get it. It would be weird to see someone passionately defending his view that he doesn’t know the answer to something. And in a way, the uncertainty is implied. If we’re watching two people disagreeing with each other, then obviously there’s uncertainty. But I think having everything framed this way, always, constantly, is really bad. It makes it look to viewers like there are only two viable options: You can agree with expert A or you can agree with expert B. But there’s a third option: you can remain uncertain, and recognize that the issue is complicated.
My proposal: Normalize having someone argue for uncertainty/caution/moderation. Make it explicit! Media outlets should actively seek out experts who say, “This is a really tough issue and here’s why everyone else is overconfident.” The audience should be shown that this is a viable stance to take.
Vincit Veritas 