There is a reasonably simple way out of the dilemma discussed her about so-called ‘false balance’, and this holds for scientists, ‘lay’ persons and journalists alike: Concentrate on and analyse WHAT is being said rather than WHO is saying it. In other words, beware the irrational appeal to authority.
While it may seem counter-intuitive to consider that people claiming scientific authority may have got something wrong, and that ‘mere’ patients may have got something right, this nevertheless is sometimes (even often in ME/CFS, for example) the case. A truly rational and, dare I say it, scientific approach will accept this, and will not be cowed by those unsubstiated claims of ‘consensus’ or false dichotomies of ’scientists versus patients’ that dog, for just one example, the issue of ME/CFS.
I’m writing as an academic social scientist, by the way. I say this not to appeal to my own alleged authority, which would be fallacious (though I do consider myself to have specific ‘academically’ obtained social scientific expertise on problems in constructing certain ‘psychiatric disorders’, a subject which sociologists have critiqued before). I do this to demonstrate that:
(a) some patients or their advocates do have ‘legitimised’ knowledge in their own right, which somewhat destabilises the idea that their knowledge cannot compete for status of ‘valid’ with others claiming ’scientific authority’, and
(b) Claims of ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ statuses are unstable and problematic: something usually understood by students of sociology and philosophy of science.
So we are talking complex issues around claims of authoritative status here. Yet the remedy is reasonably simple in concept, though requires hard work and thinking outside the little boxes. If we apply the rejection of irrational appeals to authority, and rely on the standard of scientific accuracy instead (regardless of who said it) we can see that what the Wellcome Institute said was wrong (it is pretty clear that is the case, as shown even by the writer of this blog), by its own professed assumptions to be following standards of scientific process and enquiry. That members of such an ‘eminent’ institute made such an error does not change that.
Journalists should be avoiding ‘false’ balance, but this doesn’t mean they can remove balance at all, which is what they are in danger of doing when they are emotionally swayed, by the irrational appeal to authority, to avoid looking thoroughly and as objectively as possible at the claims of all parties in a situation. Same goes for ’scientists’, ‘lay’ persons and indeed, ’social scientists’ and other academics.