The contemporary obsession with "a monolithic Truth" is bad for democracy, according to this clearheaded survey. New Mexico Tech social scientist Dotson (Technically Together) contends that the idea that truth is "more powerful than politics" is at the heart of today's upswing in partisanship, as those who disagree with one's rendering of the facts are characterized as incompetent, indoctrinated, or self-interested. Not only is it impossible to draw a clear distinction between science and politics, Dotson argues, but the tendency of scientific research to uncover uncertainties and complexities, rather than definitive answers, can make public controversies--over the viability of nuclear waste disposal sites, for instance--worse. Dotson also cautions against overreliance on the "common sense" of "the people," and picks apart other narratives that foster "fanatical certitude," including the belief that economic markets are "amoral and autonomous machines." In order to improve political discourse and reach better and more equitable policy decisions, Dotson suggests that scientists should shift the focus from "easy certainties" to "skeptical questions" in debates over vaccine safety and other contentious matters, and outlines how appeals to "shared experience" are more effective than "fact-based interventions" in changing minds and promoting tolerance. Lucid writing, illuminating examples, and a firm point of view make this a refreshing take on contemporary political dysfunctions. (Aug.)

A sharp portrait of our deeply fractured political system. Our current political polarization is neither unique nor intractable, notes social sciences professor Dotson, who details measures that can engender a genuinely democratic ethos. It is not too much democracy (or politics) that thwarts us but too little, writes the author--and not nearly enough plurality in our dialogues or the processes of designing and enacting policy. Critiquing the notions of objective fact or incontrovertible truth and upending much contemporary thinking on the choice between the expertise of elites and populist-driven concepts of governance, Dotson locates the impediments we face in our reliance on calcified beliefs, outmoded constructs, and the demonstrably faulty procedures we cling to. No segment of American society escapes his scrutiny: liberals, conservatives, moderates, fundamentalists, libertarians, defenders of the free market, and advocates of science above all. Each makes fundamental errors in assaying the problems we confront and the path forward, leaving us confused, frustrated, and fatalistic. We suffer due to our fear of conflict and simplistic calls for "civility," longing for an age of certitude (that never was), and insistence on thinking our opponents are either corrupt, ignorant, or brainwashed. The much-derided "soft" sciences offer some keys to achieving balance, as does heightened participation in democratic processes by every portion of society. Dotson advocates for a less authoritarian approach to politics that embraces the life experiences and skills of everyone, regardless of political conviction, and that blends these perspectives with those of acknowledged experts and involves the widest spectrum of citizens in every facet of developing policy. He knows his prescriptions for change, however logical, will be challenging to implement. Perhaps some of them are unattainable, but his arguments are cogent, his optimism profound. An important demonstration that to thrive--indeed, to survive--our fissured democracy must be far more democratic. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.