More information is now available to individuals than ever before. When I was a student in the early 1980s, you had to be a card carrying member of a library to access books and scientific articles. Access to a book was just the start. You had to know how to search books for information. The good and respected authors were known amongst the peers. It was critical to know how to formulate a question and evaluating the written work was a skill that you learnt early.
These days we hit the web, type a few words into the html bar and expect a zillion links to information to be delivered by Google or Bing. So we become, one and all, experts on everything we can imagine. So we imagine.
Man is lazy, so we look at the first few hits, read the links, and make up our mind. It is the most important links first we imagine, so it must be the truth. It is written and published, so it must be the truth, or it must at least be of value. This information shapes our views and influences our decisions. Sometimes it influences decisions that should remain within the realm of the real experts, not the Google-enabled ones.
Let’s look a a real example. Is the fluoridation of drinking water a good thing or should it be abolished? Two camps here: On the one hand we have those supporting it citing the good dental health of populations where fluoridation is in place, and then there is the camp saying that blanket fluoridation is mass medication with a questionable chemical compound that affects intellect, etc.
Assume the city council runs a referendum on this topic. How would you vote: Yes or No for fluoridation of drinking water? Where would you start your ‘research’ (an over-used word these days, denoting anything from asking about the views of people right down to PhD studies)? I bet you would hit Wikipedia and Google. Why would you go to the academic library at the University? That is hard work and if it is really significant, it should be available on the web, not so? Or perhaps we can just listen to the experts, those that have read the posts and articles already.
Many dentists agree that fluoridated water has a positive effect in preventing dental decay. They agree that too much fluoride may stain teeth. There are also several untested theories that claim fluoride will lower intelligence, influence weight management and may increase fracturing of bones. The problem here is that medical people have a professional view, which is offset by the perceptions of the activists, that are vocal and self-taught experts, using their friend Google to make convincing and emotional cases that will swing city councils to abandon fluoridation.
My position is that the activists must be willing to put their money where their mouths are. If we stop fluoridation in a community under pressure of lobby groups, they must also pay for the effects of tooth decay in that community ten years down the line, out of their own, personal pockets. I mean, if you are convinced, do the right thing and pay up. If you have done the proper research, you should have nothing to fear.
Unfortunately Google can easily be used to scare the masses in the name of research. Perhaps we should all work hard to ensure that research remains grounded properly. We should also stand up to the self-informed, Google-dictated loud-mouths and insist on facts and evidence, not Google-based ‘we all know this’ crap.
Posts
