Everyone else just wings it
That’s very very very interesting.
It’s interesting the other disciplines/professions don’t grasp that it’s good to say you don’t know when you don’t know. It’s interesting that they’re more self-protective and less thoughtful. It’s interesting that they haven’t internalized the fact that winging it is bad, because it risks disinforming. It’s interesting that the truth takes second place to the ego.
Epistemology should be at the heart of education. What do you know and how do you know it? Do you know how to confirm or disconfirm what you know? Do you check your sources? Do you mistake assertion for truth? It all matters.
If people were taught from the outset that they can’t know everything, that it’s better to learn than to pretend to know already, that we’re all easily fooled, and above all that an assertion, no matter how confident, isn’t true just because it’s an assertion…we’d all be better off.
That’s interesting, because I am used to scientists who say that…but maybe not the ones he is talking to. My students receive a lesson on the importance of “I Don’t Know” the first week. I tell them you cannot be fully educated if you don’t know how and when to use those words.
It is, though, one of the most missed questions on my test. The students are sure they will look dumb if they say I Don’t Know.
It is a crucial feature of science. Science happens within the I Don’t Know. We don’t need to discover what we already know.
One of the things I learned from my mother, and applied in my own mothering, was saying “I don’t know, shall we find out?” to children’s questions. Sometimes, my response was slightly different “I don’t know, and won’t be able to find out until later”, or even “I don’t know, and I doubt anyone knows. We might never know” but whatever the case, I have never been uncomfortable with not knowing something. It means I have an opportunity to learn.
I wonder if it is the case that a lot of people’s self-esteem rests in their knowing things, and admitting ignorance of a subject makes them feel stupid?
I agree with iknklast — there’s a selection bias at work here.
If you’re an academic (or any kind of expert) who is cautious and says “I don’t know” a lot, you will not be considered “a good quote” by journalists and their editors. From what I can tell, there seem to be three ways that experts get used in stories:
1. Genuine, trying to help the audience understand a complex issue. This is ideal, but rare.
2. An end-run around objectivity rules and practices. At many publications, a reporter isn’t allowed to just assert X, because that would be editorializing, so they have to get one or more experts to say it. “Senator X’s claim that massive tax cuts for the wealthy will reduce poverty is nonsense” isn’t allowed, but “Economists say that Senator X’s claims…” is fine. (There’s a long discussion to be had about the merits of “view from nowhere” journalism, and the possible merits of shoring up the reporter’s opinion with an expert’s, but suffice it to say that these cases are all reporters in search of a specific quote rather than a genuine search for understanding. And because the reporter is fishing for a specific statement, “I don’t know” or “it’s complicated” is not welcome.
3. “Dueling opinions.” Similar to (2) in that the reporter knows what he or she wants the experts to say, it’s just that this time there will be two experts, each advocating one side of an issue. And like most debate formats, clear, strong views are favored and equivocal, cautious ones are not.
This is a bit of a crude taxonomy, and I’m probably being a little unfair to journalists. There are good articles that use experts well and welcome nuance.
I was going to add something, but iknklast and Screechy Monkey already got there. Certainly in my field, people have highly tuned bullshit detectors. Hoo boy, you should see how presenters get absolutely flame-grilled at conferences during the question/answer period when it becomes clear that they are filling the air with guesses. (I am in a STEM field; perhaps the OP’s journalist is more accustomed to speaking with those in the social sciences?)
Engineers are trained to say ‘I don’t know’, since bullshitting or guessing can get people killed (we study structure collapses as object lessons). My first surveying teacher once said ‘one loud I don’t know is worth a thousand words of bullshit.’
Maybe this says more about the journalist not really understanding the nature of the answers? Like some others above I work in STEM. Often I can give a quantitative answer with a high degree of accuracy and precision. Sometimes I can estimate a broad range. Sometimes I can only give a qualitative answer (higher or lower than current). Occasionally I just have to shrug and say no idea. I’m always clear about what type of answer I’m giving, as are my colleagues and generally those in my industry. I rather bet that the journalist doesn’t understand, or want, the qualification that is added to those middling responses. They’re still based on real expertise and experience though, not guesses or winging it.
Last me=Like some?
“Engineers are trained to say ‘I don’t know’” but then managers lean on them to ignore what they know and go ahead with the launch anyway.
Most engineers I know are uncomfortable with fewer than five nines. But that’s a different sort of certainty, I guess.