The Divide: How Fanatical Certitude Is Destroying Democracy

The contemporary obsession with “a monolithic Truth” is bad for democracy, according to this clearheaded survey. New Mexico Tech social scientist Dotson (Technically Together) contends that the idea that truth is “more powerful than politics” is at the heart of today’s upswing in partisanship, as those who disagree with one’s rendering of the facts are characterized as incompetent, indoctrinated, or self-interested. Not only is it impossible to draw a clear distinction between science and politics, Dotson argues, but the tendency of scientific research to uncover uncertainties and complexities, rather than definitive answers, can make public controversies—over the viability of nuclear waste disposal sites, for instance—worse. Dotson also cautions against overreliance on the “common sense” of “the people,” and picks apart other narratives that foster “fanatical certitude,” including the belief that economic markets are “amoral and autonomous machines.” In order to improve political discourse and reach better and more equitable policy decisions, Dotson suggests that scientists should shift the focus from “easy certainties” to “skeptical questions” in debates over vaccine safety and other contentious matters, and outlines how appeals to “shared experience” are more effective than “fact-based interventions” in changing minds and promoting tolerance. Lucid writing, illuminating examples, and a firm point of view make this a refreshing take on contemporary political dysfunctions. (Aug.)