Political coalitions assemble narratives like courtroom briefs—optimized to win, not to be fully consistent or true. Science introduces inconvenient facts that function like cross‑examination, exposing contradictions and forcing powerful actors to revise stories over time. This explains both initial suppression (e.g., Galileo) and later narrative adaptation by institutions.
— Seeing science as a standing cross‑examiner clarifies why regimes suppress research and why open evidence ecosystems are essential to keep governance honest.
2025.10.07
72% relevant
Frances Widdowson’s insistence on evidence (asking the CBC reporter if she is 'satisfied with the evidence') functions as cross‑examination of an entrenched Kamloops narrative, while the reporter appeals to 'social and archaeological consensus' and 'believe indigenous people'—illustrating science‑style scrutiny confronting status‑based narratives.
Lionel Page
2025.08.15
100% relevant
The article’s courtroom analogy and examples (Galileo’s recantation; North Korea’s teleportation claim; later Church acceptance of heliocentrism).
← Back to All Ideas