Ask yourself the following question, which are you more likely to believe,
- The Sky is blue
- Scientists say the sky is blue
Now ask yourself which of these statements you are more likely to believe,
- The UK has the fifth largest economy in the world
- Politicians say the UK has the fifth largest economy in the world
The use of quotes and attribution of statements to individuals and groups is an important part of assigning credibility. It may also be an important safeguard to prevent legal action being taken against a media publication. However, when discussing matters of science this approach has a serious undermining effect and the discussion of climate change is one of its leading victims.
The latest example of this practise from @RobinMcKie (Observer 08/01/2017) illustrates the issue.
Consider the following examples from the article (bold my emphasis):
Red mullet, sardines and sea bass have also appeared with increasing frequency in North Sea fishermen’s nets in recent years. All of them are associated with warmer waters and their appearance is seen by many scientists as a sign that climate change is beginning to have a serious impact on our planet’s oceans
“Fish have already been reduced to low numbers by intense overfishing and that makes them far less able to deal with increasing temperatures or other effects of climate change.”
Now compare with another statement from the same article
Fish gives the nation [Bangladesh] 60% of its animal protein
In the first two the statements are qualified as coming from a group or an individual. As the groups and individuals involved are scientists, the first statement could be read without the text in bold, the second is placed in quotation marks, indicating attribution to an individual [Malin Pinsky]. The statement could equally be written without the quotation marks.
When looking at the comparison example we see that there is no qualification. A statement is being made, but how would anyone know this? One can assume that scientists have studied the animal protein uptake of the Bangladeshi people and determined it to compromise 60% fish protein, so the statement could be written:
A recent study has shown that Fish gives the nation [Bangladesh] 60% of its animal protein
Is this important or pedantic?
There are three important points to consider.
The first is the mixing of qualified and unqualified statements in the same article.
By stressing attribution of a statement to an individual or group, the veracity of the statement is immediately brought into question. One may conclude that when “scientists say” they might either be wrong, or that other groups, for example other scientists, might disagree. The effect is compounded when written alongside unqualified statements, that we are invited not to question. (The statement on Fish protein is accurate according to a recent study
The second is the wider use of attribution in the same publication.
Consider the front page article from the Observer on the same day from @TobyHelm
… Jason Langrish – one of Canada’s authorities in the field – says the UK’s former ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers…was absolutely right to say that a British deal could also take a decade to strike.
In this case the article is correctly expressing the “opinion” of someone (while advertising an article elsewhere in the paper). The reader is conditioned throughout the publication to treat quotes from politicians, think-tanks, scientists, and the ever ubiquitous “anonymous officials” with whatever scepticism they feel appropriate. By treating scientists in the same way as the other (less evidence based) groups, the veracity of the scientific claims is reduced.
The third issue is the publication making unqualified statements that are either false or not clearly true. In the Observer the same day, we see an assessment of Obama’s legacy, and among his listed achievements are “Persuading China to join the Paris Climate Accord.” This is at least a contentious statement with many other reasons given for China’s participation in the talks, with an open possibility that it was China that lead the way.
In summary the qualification of statements, with the infamous “scientists say…”, undercuts their validity, a validity that coming from scientists, they deserve. As a result, the warnings of impending climate disaster are reduced to opinions and scattered amongst the speculations and fabrications of the news’ other protagonists. If scientific evidence is presented as such then scientists can stop saying things.