preview

The Unpersuadables Chapter 7 Summary

Decent Essays

In Chapter 7 of The Unpersuadables: Adventures with the Enemies of Science, Will Storr addressed his time spent exploring homeopathy and skepticism. First, he wrote about his interview with Gemma, an activist for homeopathy whose interview with BBC Radio Five Live went viral online after someone edited a rubber duck saying ‘Quack’ over her every time she spoke. Since the editor of Gemma’s video was presumably a Skeptic, Storr then transitioned into writing about his time spent exploring Skeptic culture. He wrote under the assumption that Skepticism is founded on the principle of which “it’s incredibly important that people not get carried away with wishful thinking, with stuff they would like to be true” (Storr 103). However, Storr went on …show more content…

In the study, each source was ranked based on the political leanings of its audience. As a result, it ranked sources such as Buzzfeed more liberal than average while it ranked sources such as the Rush Limbaugh Show more conservative than average. However, none of the sources earned a perfectly neutral ranking (Wormald). The correlation between news sources and their audience’s political leanings becomes interesting when compared to the type of content each news source produces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, is infamous for his conservative rhetoric, whereas Buzzfeed is known for its lighthearted quizzes and comical representation of liberal politics. This reveals something about our perception of truth: biased sources allow individuals to ‘select’ the truth. When conflicting information is pushed to the side, it becomes nonexistent. Subsequently, the sum of partial truths interpreted by an individual becomes a whole truth in their mind, especially when partial truths are reinforced by mainstream media sources such as Buzzfeed or the Rush Limbaugh Show. This is harmful because, as Lewis implied, the entire truth is lost in this process and mutual understanding becomes harder to …show more content…

Ullman and Lewis are a perfect example of this. When both men were prompted to discuss Professor Aijing Shang’s study on homeopathy, they interpreted it in two completely different ways. Ullman claimed that the study was unfairly skewed against homeopathy whereas Lewis claimed that the study was credible and that Shang was justified in the steps he took while conducting the experiment. When Storr asked Lewis if Ullman was at least partially justified in his interpretation, Lewis responded, “Dana is always wrong. So, no, I wouldn’t go that far” (Storr 115). A study meant to produce one whole truth managed to benefit the biases of two opposing arguments due to the effects of confirmation bias – in this, the whole truth was lost. This raises the question: if the whole truth is lost, did it exist to begin with? Is anything true without our making it so? Storr, unfortunately, does not attempt to answer this question in Chapter 7. He simply acknowledges its presence. In doing so, however, he revitalized the overarching theme of confirmation bias and truth in the book, and I believe that was done with intention. Each chapter thus far has detailed Storr’s journey into increasingly complex levels of this theme without ever reaching a true conclusion, but this chapter set a different dynamic: it insinuated that, perhaps, there is no true conclusion to be found.

Get Access