We are a rationally based society in that we like to think we make our decisions based upon reason. This was a process of thought developed over centuries, starting from the empirical ideals of John Locke and David Hume. In short, from the Enlightenment, we like to make decisions based upon evidence and fact, and not upon blind faith or emotions.
In an abridged story, we have become a society that follows science, the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and we do so through experimentation, based upon ideals established by Karl Popper, a scientist and philosopher. In essence, we put forth a hypothesis and then we try to disprove it. If we are unable to refute it, then our hypothesis must be true. But Popper did put in a caveat on this, stating that this truth is only temporal, as in time, we might be able to invalidate it. This is the ideal of science for which we are taught to believe in: it is a system of objectivity.
But what if that system had been compromised? What if the ideals of science had been manipulated to promote subjective objectives? This may sound conspiratorial, but there has been evidence that industry manipulates scientific experiments for economic gain.
When our society followed a neo-liberal economic path, our government put forth austerity measures, which included our ability to truly evaluate the scientific progress being made by private industry. This was an important stage needed to protect the safety and health of Canadians, but without funding, these measures would be stalled. In response, our government charged industry for screening new technology (including medicines, communication devices), relying on industry to provide the scientific data. The government also relied upon academic research, but they too were changing their attitudes, acting more like firms than the academic institutions of the past, which desperately needed funding. This too made them susceptible to being manipulated by industry, again skewing some of the research to attain desired results.
Most of us do not have the scientific knowledge to evaluate new technology as it emerges, so we have little choice but to trust the due diligence of our government in reviewing and approving those technologies. But is this naïve of us? We cannot assume that all the scientific research has been compromised, but it does raise the question of what knowledge can we trust and rely on. Too often we are told that new technology meets the standards acceptable to Health Canada or Industry Canada, arguments designed to shut down those opposing or questioning a project. And because we are socialized to trust the science and reasoning, we back off. But, knowing that the scientific evidence may be compromised, to trust any level of government making such assertions, may be nothing more than irrational faith in the veracity of that government.
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
