Is all "truthiness" bad? Science using "truthiness" as a help rather than a hinderance.

            The extent that we rely on science to make decisions varies on the amount of both general and scientific knowledge we have about the scenario. I vividly remember my mother making the decision not to go forth with an autonomous stem cell transplant. She ultimately decided to forgo the treatment as she “felt” in her “gut” that she would not survive the harm done to her body. An autonomous stem cell transplant filters and cleans the blood, decreasing her ability to fight potential infection, and is incredibly damaging to the body. The procedure required my mother to go to Washington D.C. for three months with contact limited to doctors and my father. The truth was that they could not guarantee success in the procedure, and her risks were real. Physicians advised my mother that her decision to forgo this treatment would mean there are no other options, only hospice. My mother’s decision to forgo the procedure gave her one more year to spend with her children, and we will never know if what she “felt” in her “gut” was real.

            We know very little about the emotional experience of “feeling” something in your “gut” for all we know it could be one of the best ways to make decisions. Is the inclusion of the emotional experience make science “truthy”? I believe that “truthiness” is part of the human experience and cannot be denied from the information that we share to the public. To say that science can only convey the “truth” defies what we know about the human influence of science.  I argue that as hard as we try to tell only the truth it is nearly impossible, and that nearly all scientific information is “truthiness.” I am sure some scientists would resent the idea that they influence their work but as we discussed in class we try to find the information we think we know. When we write science it is important to be responsible and ethical about how much we influence what is written and shared with the public. It is equally important that we look at the way in which science is conducted, and evaluate it for potential confounding ideas and opinions.  

            “Truthiness” is necessary to appeal to different parts of the population. We saw in “Gasland” that appealing to the emotional side of people can change the way that individual, popular, and corporate decisions are made. It can allow others to do further research in to a topic by questioning the ideas and values that are presented. Unfortunately, this can also influence people to believe that vaccines are still causing Autism Spectrum Disorders. There is an extent to which I can argue that “truthiness” is acceptable, as our job as science writers is to present the best and most accurate information. I imagine that “truthiness” is on a spectrum one side telling the truth with emotional appeal the other telling blatant lies to gain emotional support. I believe that we have a role as science writers to challenge science’s “truthiness” but to appeal to public interest as well.