Guest | Register | Login
Sense Making Questions   5 July 2008

One of the Independents columnists, Joahann Hari, has provoked some discussion about the cancellation of school field trips and the way that Health and Safety regulations are (wrongly, he says) blamed.

I go along with his argument up to a point, but believe that there is a deeper issue. It seems to me that the real danger highlighted by Mr Hari's article is not an unfounded fear of increased litigation, but that students may not be encouraged to explore and acquire new knowledge.

This may not be simply a fear of regulations but a subtler reluctance to inquire. In a society characterised by rapid change, increasing complexity and personal stress, many people feel that they do not have time for the luxury of asking or answering questions.

Indeed asking questions creates resentment and will frequently get you labeled as a trouble maker (or as 'crazy'). Even public inquiries into major events are no longer de rigeur. For example, Tony Blair said that an inquiry into the London bombings of 7/7 would be a 'ludicrous diversion'. Thus we have yet to see the evidence for the many subsequent terror-related decisions.

This pattern is repeated time and time again in both the public and private domain. It makes no sense.

Indeed, our politico-corporate leaders rarely seek to make sense of problems. A small group of bankers manipulate the banking system so that they individually make millions of pounds profit. The government deals with this by giving more millions of tax-payers money to those same bankers and suggesting that in future there should be less oversight of their actions! What is the evidence for this approach?

Politicians say that they want to introduce democracy and liberty to a particular country, so they then spend billions of tax payers money bombing that country back to the stone age. Years later the 'natives' are still remarkably restless. What was the evidence that such a strategy would work?

Our prisons are overflowing and prison staff and systems stretched to breaking point. Yet we persist in creating more laws and turning civil offenses into criminal offences. Poor single mothers end up in prison because they can not pay the fine caused by not having a TV license. Their children become wards of the state and labeled as 'difficult'.  Where is the evidence that this approach works?

When evidence is discovered the questions continue because we have to figure out what to do with it - what does it mean, how do we make sense of it?

For example, dust collected from the World Trade Centre site after 9/11 has been microscopically analysed by several laboratories and found to contain massive amounts of thermite residue. Nano-thermite has been developed in several US defence and other laboratories as a spray-on compound which can be easily ignited to produce very powerful explosive effects (enough to melt steel).  The presence of thermite residue in a fire is deemed to be prima fascie evidence of arson. Yet this evidence has been ignored by both the main stream media and the official report. No arson investigation has been carried out. Why, how do we make sense of this omission?

Evidence based decision making requires that we first discover the evidence, then use it to test hypotheses and subsequently formulate appropriate response(s). Without evidence there will be no accounting for politicians. Losing the habit of asking questions is catastrophic not just for science but for society as a whole.


Posted by Nicholas Moore    12:52:02 am
Comments are now closed for this post



All works on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License, unless otherwise specified or a reference to an external source is provided.