A popular enlightenment - Module 4

C2 Proficiency · Multiple Choice Reading · Expert Proficiency Resource Book, Pearson Education

You are going to read an article about science on the internet. For questions 1–6, choose the answer (A, B, C or D) which you think fits best according to the text.

Alternative medicine has never enjoyed such popularity and respect as it does today. Techniques once dubbed 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' are now typically referred to as 'alternative', 'complementary' or 'holistic'. Practices that used to circulate on the fringes are now accepted as mainstream. But the rise of alternative medicine poses a problem for defenders of science. Many see the fight back as a lost cause, but I cannot share this view because the factors that allow quackery to prosper can and are being harnessed for a counter-revolution in defence of science itself. In the past, those espousing alternative lifestyles joined groups of like-minded people and subscribed to counter-cultural magazines. They now participate in online communities and surf the internet, where they also encounter alternative websites and blogs by the dozen, but also come across mainstream scientific arguments. In other words, the defence of science is also increasingly being understood by members of the public because the web has proved to be a crucial mobilising instrument for pro-science activists. Such defence was once conducted primarily by scholars; today the battle is often fought at an individual level via cut-and-thrust debate in 'blog columns'. This social phenomenon of 'angry nerds' and 'guerrilla bloggers', dedicated to defending evidence-based medicine and challenging quackery, is important. Rather than relying on scientists to defend the boundaries of science, we are seeing a much more socially embedded struggle – a 'popular enlightenment project'. Can such a project work? Reassuring goals of progress through reason and evidence is one thing, but whether it has any effect remains an open question. How easy is it to persuade people through factual corrections? The answer seems to depend a great deal on the individual. For example, according to recent research, providing people who are ideologically committed to a particular view with incongruent information can backfire by causing them to dig their heels in and support their original argument even more strongly. This problem is a general one. A substantial body of psychological research suggests that humans tend to seek out and evaluate information that reinforces their existing views. The digital revolution has exacerbated the problem because, as journalist Fahad Manjoo writes, you can now 'watch, listen to and read what you want, wherever you want; seek out and discuss, in exhaustive and insular detail, the kind of news that pleases you; and indulge your political, social or scientific theories ... among people who feel exactly the same way.' I believe such pessimism goes too far, though. The boundary between mainstream and alternative knowledge may have become more permeable but the world has yet to enter what political scientist Michael Barkun of Syracuse University in New York calls 'complete epistemological pluralism'. The fact that quacks keep trying to get the imprimatur of science for their discredited ideas, by trying to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, for example, speaks to the continued public prestige and power of science. Furthermore, this supposed base is far from fixed in stone. Some people are so committed to unorthodox views that they cannot be moved, but they are the exception. People motivated to explore the 'rabbit hole' – that fluid countercultural space in which alternative therapies and conspiracy theories flourish – are also open to changing their minds. In his seminal work on the cultic milieu, sociologist Colin Campbell of York University in the UK stresses that it is not a space where firm opinions are held but rather a 'society of seekers' – people who 'do not necessarily cease seeking when a received truth is offered to them.' This creates the space for pro-science activists to compete for attention. When they do so, the internet becomes a tougher place for people to sequestrate themselves in a comfortable cocoon of the like-minded. This is good news for the enlightenment project. People may be biased in favour of interpretations that align with their prejudices but this does not mean that they just believe what they like. Faced with information of sufficient quantity or clarity, people do change their minds. So the challenge for the pro-science movement is to keep an active and credible online presence. The web is an anarchic space where defence of science ranges from ridicule and banter to serious discussion about findings along with links to scientific articles and reports. It looks, in other words, like the space that used to be the preserve of the coffee house – but with greater informational depth. The weapons of science and reason are still very much in contention.

continue to see alternative medicine as insignificant.

have themselves embraced the ideas of alternative medicine.

use pejorative language when referring to alternative medicine.

feel it is no longer worth challenging claims made by alternative medicine.

In the first paragraph, the writer disagrees with scientists who

It has meant more laypeople are joining scientific debates.

It has weakened the position of those who would defend science.

It has tended to give too much credence to unscientific viewpoints.

It has encouraged people to become too passionate about scientific issues.

What point does the writer make about scientific discussions on blogs?

attracts people with very fixed points of view.

can reinforce people's existing beliefs and prejudices.

causes people to take the beliefs of others more seriously.

allows people to check the facts behind accepted theories.

The quote from Fahad Manjoo illustrates the point that the Internet

are not always consistent in the arguments they bring forward.

find that they are treated unfairly by the scientific community.

remain keen to gain the approval of the scientific community.

tend to ignore the contrary evidence produced by scientists.

The writer suggests that proponents of discredited ideas in alternative medicine

Available as a free printable PDF worksheet with an optional answer key.

More C2 Proficiency Multiple Choice Reading practice · All C2 Proficiency practice