Assignment 8

I think presenting balance in scientific writing can easily be compared to how we present data in science. In science we find results and we create a confidence limit, which means we take a set of random data and we say the 95% of the data closest to the average are accepted and the radical data, or outliers, are left out. Sometimes the outliers may deserve mention, but often times they do not.
The same can be said for writing about science for the public. If 95% of the scientists say that global warming exists (I actually think it's more like 99%, but I am not sure) then is it really worth it to include the 5% that are the outliers? No. This 95% is an overwhelming majority. If there was a 50-50 split in the scientific community or even an 80-20 split, I think it would be important to present the other side. But 5% is such a samll minority.
That is not to say those 95% agree on every aspect of global warming. The mechanics of climate changes is still very much up for debate. We need to accept their predictions on the average. The average says that global warming is real and it is a considerable threat. We can ignore the outliers in this instance, i.e. the doomsday-types that say we will all be dead tomorrow and the deniers that reject the theory of global warming outright.
But the issue that keeps nagging at the back of my head is this: what if they are right? Copernicus was a radical. He was an outlier when he said the Earth revolved around the Sun, but his ideas turned out to be right. What if that's true of the global warming nay-sayers and or the people that say HIV doesn't cause AIDS? What if those folks are correct? My idea is that if they are correct then that will become clear through the continuation of good science. In other words, it's acceptable losses. I will believe the 95% for now. This is why we test and retest and try new experiments. If our theories are wrong then that will become clear with time. If we follow the wrong path for now then the best we can say down the road is that we tried. It's a risk. But not a very big risk. For the handful of times that the outliers have been correct there have been thousands of times that they haven't. Like I said before: acceptable losses.
So when debating if we should present the other side in a story it is important to look at how big that other side is. Is it one wing-nut shouting from a street corner or is a respectably-sized group of independent research teams coming to a similar conclusion? Stick with the 95% when presenting science. If there is no 95% then that is when you present both sides of the argument.