I agree in part with this article. As a centrist writer, I would encourage everyone to read as much as they can and everyone should read a diversity of perspectives – but you’re right, that doesn’t make them inclined to agree – such a thing may be an academic exercise.

The skill isn’t necessarily in agreeing, it’s about the ability to think critically about what is being presented. This skill is being gradually eroded and the psychological mechanisms that make such a thing difficult are not well understood. So whilst I would encourage everyone to read widely, I think the emphasis must be on applying a critical eye over what you’re reading.

I also don’t think there can be a balanced scientific position – that’s not how science works. That’s your point and it’s a good one. The everyone has a place at the table approach taken by broadcasters is misplaced when it comes to scientific issues like climate change and shape of the earth etc…. But that applies to the critical thinking on the part of those putting together the programme. There’s a threshold of scientific objectivity that needs to be breached before oxygen should be given to a world view.

That’s why we didn’t consult the astrologists and homeopaths about COVID.