Last updated on March 1, 2015
[F]luoride is a natural mineral that, in the weak concentrations used in public drinking-water systems, hardens tooth enamel and prevents tooth decay—a cheap and safe way to improve dental health for everyone, rich or poor, conscientious brushers or not. That’s the scientific and medical consensus.
To which some people in Portland, echoing anti-fluoridation activists around the world, reply: We don’t believe you.
We live in an age when all manner of scientific knowledge—from the safety of fluoride and vaccines to the reality of climate change—faces organized and often furious opposition. Empowered by their own sources of information and their own interpretations of research, doubters have declared war on the consensus of experts. There are so many of these controversies these days, you’d think a diabolical agency had put something in the water to make people argumentative.
From a longer essay by Joel Achenbach in the Washington Post a few weeks ago. And then there is the March 2015 issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, which is on “The Politics of Science: Political Values and the Production, Communication, and Reception of Scientific Knowledge,” which features articles on the causes and consequences of science denialism.
Bonus: This very nice blog post titled “Should We Adopt GMOs?,” by Lauri Muranen. Excerpt:
One of the first things I have noticed is that similar to other seemingly controversial issues, the debate on GMOs is often carried with convictions rather than facts and evidence. The situation is not helped by the rather vivid imagery used in the discussions – one of the most famous of them being the term “Frankenfoods.”
In Mary Shelley’s novel [Frankenstein], the scientist Victor Frankenstein ventures to the reign of God by creating artificial life and thus can be interpreted as trying to act like one. Similarly GMOs are often portrayed as “Frankenfoods” by their opponents–artificial monsters of the food world devised by mad scientists in their lairs of wicked genius. The irony is probably lost to many but Shelley wanted to highlight the irrational fears and ignorance of the mobs, rather than the dreadfulness of the monster itself.
ht: Wendy Rahn.
It is a curious kind of opposition to science, because it is selective. The anti-fluoride, anti-vaccine crowd are, however, convinced that anthropogenic global warming is real and a huge problem. And I would venture a guess that most people who doubt global warming is real are however happy with fluoride and vaccines.
To me, it seems to be more about political convictions than scientific convictions.
Absolutely. It is part of the culture-war narrative. That is the ugly side of rational ignorance: People pick a team, then seem to adopt said team’s attitude hook, line, and sinker. “Why should I think carefully about what my opinion is on [topic X] when I can read the New York Times/watch Fox News and they will tell me what people like me think?”