By profession, I’m an educator, in that I attempt to teach science to children. This is both rewarding and frustrating in equal measure. Rewarding in that you can see students make real progress and frustrating because of the barriers that, all too often, impede that very progress.
The most significant of these obstacles to progress is not a lack of understanding or knowledge but rather the preconceptions that the learner already has. If someone thinks they already understand something, it follows that their efforts are significantly reduced. And when that understanding is flawed- or just plainly wrong- the barrier to learning is very great indeed. Quite simply, the mind cherishes the misconceptions and treats all attempts to correct them as personal attacks. Unless you are very careful, correcting knowledge becomes a criticism of the person and not their understanding- and that really does get in the way of learning.
In many cases, the most significant misconceptions are the things that everybody knows. Things everybody knows but in fact knows wrong. Life is full of these little factoids, things that have been repeated so often that we just accept them uncritically. And these factoids can become significant problems to understanding.
A good example of this is the statement that carrots help you see in the dark. Like a lot of- but not all- factoids, there is a kernel of truth at its centre. Carrots contain the orange pigment, carotene, which the human body can convert into retinol, a substance that is better known as vitamin A. The fact that retinol is then used in the eye to manufacture the light sensitive pigment rhodopsin, which is necessary for the rods in the retina to detect light only helps to give credence to the factoid, especially when you understand that the rods are the light receptors most active in low levels of light. Indeed, a deficiency in vitamin A can cause night blindness. However, no amount of said vitamin will allow you to see in pitch dark.
So where did this statement come from? It was thanks to a programme of misinformation engineered by the RAF during the Second World War. It had become apparent to the Luftwaffe that night bombing raids of Britain were significantly less dangerous than day time ones, as the brave pilots of the spitfires and hurricanes that defended Britain from aerial assault were unable to see the approaching bombers and their fighter escorts. Indeed, in the early days of the war, the early warning system of such attacks was down to the Royal Corps of Observers, who watched the skies over the English Channel through binoculars for signs of imminent attack.
Naturally, a better system of detection was needed, and so, a Radio Direction Finder (RDF) was invented, a device that broadcast radio waves and then detected any that were reflected back by incoming aircraft. By 1941 this device had the ability to give the range of the aircraft and the acronym became RADAR, short for RAdio Detection And Ranging. In those early days, radar stations were large and were often disguised as ice cream parlours so that they did not themselves become targets for the German bombers. The first aircraft borne version of this system, called AI (for Airborne Interception) was installed into the Bristol Beaufighter and later the Mosquito fighter bomber of Group Captain John “Cat’s Eyes” Cunningham. With this equipment, he was able to chalk up twenty kills defending the country from the Luftwaffe, nineteen of them at night. To keep the existence of such technology secret and to preserve the tactical advantage it engendered, the story was put about that Cunningham ate a special diet mainly of carrots to give him such excellent night vision. From there, the notion that carrots help you see in the dark became so firmly entrenched in the public consciousness that it is all but impossible to shift it.
Many factoids are like this, they start with a truth, or a half truth, sometimes created in order to prevent a different truth coming to light, sometimes created because they make the story more interesting and enjoyable for its audience and sometimes simply because of political expedience. The factoid about carrots is the first of these and another factoid to do with radar illustrates the second.
The story goes that the early radar stations operated using microwaves rather than radio waves and, in the morning after use, a significant number of dead seabirds were found outside them, some of which were partially cooked. As a result, the heating effect of microwaves was discovered and thus the microwave oven born. In fact, this is completely untrue and is an example of a factoid that is believed because it is too an amusing story to be doubted. Like the carrots factoid, it has been repeated so often that it is believed without question.
While neither of these two types of factoid are particularly damaging, except to my blood pressure as I try to teach the correct versions to children who hold onto their misconceptions with an almost religious fervour, the last type, the factoid born of politics is. Such factoids shape opinions and the true damage such factoids can wreak can easily be seen when we see them used to shape public opinion. When opinion is based on the flimsy basis of a series of factoids rather than on solid evidence, disaster can follow in its wake.
A good example of this, at the moment, are the attacks on the BBC that are being made, because they are allowing the British National Party’s lead, Nick Griffin, to participate in the Question Time programme on BBC1. Now, I have no great love for the BNP and its odious political views, but I have even less love for those who are threatening the BBC with prosecution if they allow Griffin to speak. That the BNP espouses opinions that many- including myself- call fascist is not something I argue against. What I do argue against are the factoids that some opinions are so dangerous that they should never be allowed utterance, that the public are so unsophisticated and easily led that allowing the BNP a platform will lead to the public beginning to support them.
This is not only insulting to the public at large but dangerous, far more dangerous, in fact, than allowing the BNP a platform. Censoring an opposing political opinion is a despicable action, whatever the opinion censored. And that is what those who are criticising the BNP are doing. To my mind, seeking to deny the BNP a platform is counterproductive at best. In doing so, they give credence to the BNP’s assertions that we do not live in a free society and therefore help them spread their vile message of intolerance. In short, they are helping the BNP create their own little factoids that will, eventually, be accepted by a significant minority if they are unchallenged.
The correct course of action, in my opinion, is to allow the BNP a platform and then to challenge every untruth, every logical fallacy and every false assumption they make, and thus show up this hateful organisation for what it is: not something that glorifies Britain but, instead, a vile smear on my country’s reputation. Why is this action not taken? Because the two factoids I stated earlier are accepted uncritically: that some ideas should never be allowed utterance and that the public are so stupid, they will believe anything they hear. Whatever you try to do, the BNP will spread its vile message and, by denying them a platform on a debating programme, they are allowed to spread their message unchallenged. Moreover, the public are bright enough to recognise bigotry when they see it exposed under the harsh light of public scrutiny.
In the end, it’s a shame that factoids are accepted in this regard rather than the simple fact, expressed long ago, that the only condition required for evil to triumph is that it is allowed to go unchallenged.