Dear Editor,
Science informed us factually of changing climate; it provided constructive recommendations for vaccines, and it continues to provide reliable, rational data to citizens as it has for many generations.
These scientific findings and recommendations often have been challenged for clarity, understanding and compelling advocacy. On the other hand, some challenges to science have been for argumentative reasons. Today, alternate facts smother scientific research, such that acceptance of scientific findings is now debatable.
As the majority of us have recently come to realize the correctness of changing climate warnings and of vaccination effectiveness, what will assist us to realize and accept any truths provided to us in the future? Is there a role for the North Grenville Times in discerning imperative truths from alternative facts? What could evolve in Kemptville as a constructive process for filtering out the negative alternate facts while retaining sufficient essential truths ? Do we have suggestions as to how we can discern the difference sooner?
Most of us understand the difference, after the fact.
1) This letter does not imply a search for the truths, as they are given.
2) We can respect alternative viewpoints; however, rehashing the past or attempting to determine what was the truth, is not the intent of this letter.
3) Urgently, this implores us to search for better ways to filter all reporting, so that alternative facts support the truth, not obfuscate it!
4) Can it be implemented?
What would be an improvement to remove the divide amongst North Grenville residents?
Sincerely,
Graeme Waymark
