I recently listened in on a presentation which was given by a respected academic to a political body. The topic is one that I know well and over decades have heard many arguments hugging all sides of the issue. I was dumbstruck by how fluidly the professor’s language navigated between academically supported information and his own opinions. Isn’t there a standard of disclosure for such things?
For instance, he would start with results from a study but then list projections which his team conjectured– as if lives could be lived twice and records kept accordingly. One politician asked specially about these projections, and there was an apology for the omission of the model, yet his dialogue kept flowing as if these figures were generated with the same standards as the peer reviewed papers.
For the average listener, including the folks who will make policy for tens of thousands of people, the distinction between actual data and estimates was muted if not eliminated. The professor’s tone, consistency, and manner of referring to the material did not distinguish between research and conjecture.
The inference of receiving information from an academic, particularly those who have cultivated a long CRV and a number of titles, is that they are communicating academically supported material. Anyone with limited knowledge of the topic will not be able to detect when the information is in fact a subjective opinion. Instead of aiding the pubic conversation around a topic professors become arms dealers for divisive public discourse.