There is a news report that Chinese trust prostitutes more than politicians and scientists. Apparently, an online survey was published by Insight China magazine. It seems that 7.9% of respondents consider prostitutes to be trustworthy putting them in third place behind farmers and religious workers. Scientists get a bad rap coming in close to politicians and teachers. Least credible were secretaries, real estate developers, agents, entertainers and directors. An editorial on China Daily on this rather surprising finding can be found here.
On the face of it, this result is quite surprising. But think about it. What is trust? Trust can be defined as a person on whom or thing on which one relies. Wikipedia defines trust as a "relationship of reliance." No moral judgment needs to be made in matters of trust. In this respect, it is paradoxically not surprising that prostitutes can be viewed as more trustworthy than say politicians. After all, when someone visits a prostitute, he knows exactly what he is getting. There are no undertones. There is a straight forward commercial transaction taking place with both parties knowing what they are getting. Of course I am not condoning prostitution in any fashion. I am simply making a statement regarding the nature of transaction.
Politicians are expected to do anything to stay in power so it is not surprising that they are not trusted. What about scientists.?These people are supposed to advance the state of our knowledge in an impartial manner. Supposedly facts rule in matters scientific. A single contrary observation is sufficient to disprove scientific "fact" that may be held for centuries. Take the case of swans. For centuries, it was a proven "fact" that all swans are white. Countless observations over the years had established this beyond any doubt. Until the first black swan was sighted. Immediately the statement "all swans are white" was disproved. So in this highly objective field, why do scientists have so little credibility? Part of the reason can be that over the years, there have been many exposes that have reduced the credibility of scientists. There is a mystique of scientists that they are supremely objective and pursue knowledge for its own sake; unmoved by monetary considerations. However, scientists are also human and many have slipped from the pedestal that they have been placed on by the average layperson. There have been too many cases of scientists colluding with companies to suppress negative research or scientists fudging their results or even stealing other people's work.
What is certain is that trust takes a long time to build and a very short time to be destroyed. What is also certain is that untrustworthy individuals and institutions ultimately suffer the ill effects of their actions. Often it seems that such people can get away with murder. However, fate has a habit of creeping up unawares and striking when you least expect it.
On the face of it, this result is quite surprising. But think about it. What is trust? Trust can be defined as a person on whom or thing on which one relies. Wikipedia defines trust as a "relationship of reliance." No moral judgment needs to be made in matters of trust. In this respect, it is paradoxically not surprising that prostitutes can be viewed as more trustworthy than say politicians. After all, when someone visits a prostitute, he knows exactly what he is getting. There are no undertones. There is a straight forward commercial transaction taking place with both parties knowing what they are getting. Of course I am not condoning prostitution in any fashion. I am simply making a statement regarding the nature of transaction.
Politicians are expected to do anything to stay in power so it is not surprising that they are not trusted. What about scientists.?These people are supposed to advance the state of our knowledge in an impartial manner. Supposedly facts rule in matters scientific. A single contrary observation is sufficient to disprove scientific "fact" that may be held for centuries. Take the case of swans. For centuries, it was a proven "fact" that all swans are white. Countless observations over the years had established this beyond any doubt. Until the first black swan was sighted. Immediately the statement "all swans are white" was disproved. So in this highly objective field, why do scientists have so little credibility? Part of the reason can be that over the years, there have been many exposes that have reduced the credibility of scientists. There is a mystique of scientists that they are supremely objective and pursue knowledge for its own sake; unmoved by monetary considerations. However, scientists are also human and many have slipped from the pedestal that they have been placed on by the average layperson. There have been too many cases of scientists colluding with companies to suppress negative research or scientists fudging their results or even stealing other people's work.
What is certain is that trust takes a long time to build and a very short time to be destroyed. What is also certain is that untrustworthy individuals and institutions ultimately suffer the ill effects of their actions. Often it seems that such people can get away with murder. However, fate has a habit of creeping up unawares and striking when you least expect it.
No comments:
Post a Comment