Islands of sense in sea of nonsense

What should we do on the occasions that people with extreme views make reasonable statements?

In the past couple of months, people working in public health have been presented with a dilemma. Individuals holding extreme, and often false, beliefs about health are coming closer to positions of power in the US. Falsehoods about vaccines are resurfacing, conspiracy theories are being amplified, and beneficial health research is being threatened. But, among their dangerously flawed views, these individuals sometimes take reasonable stances. Like addressing unhealthy practices in the food industry or lobbying by pharmaceutical companies in the health system.

So what should we do when scattered islands of sensible points appear from the sea of nonsense?

Some have argued those working in science and health should maintain a blanket opposition. We shouldn’t let the ‘wrong’ team be right about something. If we acknowledge one view is correct, we’ll allow the others in too.

Others have argued that we should instead use it as an opportunity to compromise. If we give people with extreme views credit and support for their better stances, perhaps it will help dilute their more outlandish claims. And maybe we can rebuild trust among a sceptical public by putting sceptics in power.

I think neither of these approaches is optimal. If someone we dislike says something sensible, it’s disingenuous to pretend that they haven’t. It makes us look like we’re more interested in being on the ‘right’ side than telling the truth. But that doesn’t mean we should automatically amplify and indulge their more reasonable positions.

First, someone with generally extreme views might be correct about a specific issue - but won’t necessarily be right about it for the right reasons. There may well be shoddy logic or conspiracy theories lurking beneath. Supporting them uncritically could therefore lead others to put their support in flawed foundations.

For example, during the COVID pandemic, some groups incorrectly claimed that the infection was very mild, and hence control measures were unwarranted. Among other things, they argued that governments should consider the harms that came from such control measures. This specific message about considering harms was valid in isolation, but in this case it was built on the false claim that the virus was relatively harmless.

Often, there can be a ‘motte-and-bailey’ tactic in these glimmers of sense. People may initially put forward an extreme and evidence-free view, then retreat into a more moderate, incontestable one when challenged. For example, groups might claim they were just concerned about wider harms from the COVID response, and quietly disown their more extreme falsehoods about the magnitude of the threat and hence the actual trade-offs involved. In such a situation, it’s important we stay focused on the full picture of what extreme groups have claimed and why, rather than assuming that a better end result may justify a misleading means.

A second reason to be cautious about compromise and support is that a sensible view from a nonsense-monger will rarely have originated with them. Others will likely have been putting forward a similar point in the past. And they’ll probably have done so in a more coherent, evidence-based and good-faith way. So these are the groups worth amplifying and giving credit to, because ultimately they’ll be much more likely to move discussions and policies in a more constructive direction.

What we shouldn’t do, in an era of distrust and scepticism, is encourage the public to put their trust in bad-faith contrarians and conspiracy theorists, just because they happen to have stumbled on a reasonable point along the way.

Cover image: Joey Kyber.

And here’s a piece of mine from last year on the topic of engaging with wider audiences: