"People debated both sides of the issue on CNN like it was a political controversy with two equally legitimate interpretations." - BA-ZING!
You know, when I wrote the first draft of this story ~2 years ago, that line wasn’t that political or pointed… but, well, the more things change the more they stay the same, I guess.
Vaccine safety and climate change are the two most important (and therefore best-known) examples of the “science shows a fact is true; let’s debate whether science shows that fact to be true” phenomenon, but there are lots of others. One of the most infamous from history is the cigarette industry’s concentrated and largely successful effort to give non-scientists the impression for decades that there was “debate” or “controversy” about whether smoking could possibly increase one’s risk for lung and circulatory diseases. Because Philip Morris et al knew that they didn’t have to prove that cigarettes are safe (and of course couldn’t prove that cigarettes are safe) but that all they had to do was suggest that no one knows for sure.
The instance of this phenomenon nearest and dearest to my little Social Cognition-researching heart is the link between violent media and subsequent aggression. It’s fascinating how you can approach a non-psych person at a party and start talking about how video games about sharing can teach students to share, books that promote equality can promote readers’ efforts toward equality, radio shows about racism can teach people to oppose racism… and movies/games/shows that reward aggression teach viewers to be more aggressive. As of that last one, people stop nodding along and start claiming that that’s “controversial” and there’s “debate” about whether aggression can teach aggression, resorting to ridiculous extreme examples like “I played GTA as a kid and I never killed anyone” as if murder is the only type of aggression. Only the scientific consensus is in, and stories are persuasive. They persuade people to help others, and they persuade people to shout at/shove around/misinterpret others.
That uncertainty is no accident. It happens because of the news outlets that present the issue as “here’s a scientist talking about the scientific consensus which comes from actual scientific data gathered through the scientific method using strict empirical standards to test competing theories… and here’s a guy who plays video games all day who disagrees with the scientist. Let’s cover both sides of this debate with equal gravity.” It also happens because video game companies such as Ubisoft and EA Games fund “research” which finds that video games have the miraculous ability to train people in good behaviors while not training them at all in any bad behaviors.* Because as long as people keep thinking that “no one has proved cigarettes cause cancer” means “scientists don’t know whether cigarettes cause cancer,” they’ll keep on buying cigarettes.
*I don’t advocate for the ban of all violent video games, or even their censorship. I advocate for the informed consumption of violent media of all forms in moderation.
[*climbs off soapbox* *holsters megaphone*]