In elementary nuclear physics textbooks, there is almost always a simple diagram of two like charges being fired at each other. So, one will see two positively charged protons moving towards each other on a collision course. But, as they get close, they skid past each other without touching. The reason is that like charges repel each other, and the closer they get, the more strongly they repel. They will never meet.

I often think that this diagram is like two people arguing with each other but coming from a different initial premise. They can never agree.

This understanding of the ‘nonagreement’ has been recognised for a long time. I do not know how long, but I can mention the Sydney Smith dilemma.
Over 170 years ago, the Reverend Sydney Smith was being taken on a conducted tour of an Edinburgh slum, in Scotland. As they progressed down a narrow alley between two double-storey buildings, they had to pass under two women screaming abuse at each other across the road. One of Smith’s guides remarked that, perhaps, the reverend could placate them, since he was a man of the cloth. Smith stopped, looked up and listened for a few moments before shaking his head and walking on. He said, no, he could not help, lamenting: “They’ll never agree – they’re arguing from different premises.”

Take, for example, the abortion argument: Should abortion be allowed on demand? If the one person starts by stating that the pregnant mother has a right to her own body but the other fellow argues that the life of the unborn baby comes first, then they have no chance of ever agreeing. It will be just like the diagram of two positively charged protons approaching each other – they cannot join. Each person’s logic path will have to take him or her to a different end point.

Many arguments in society are just like that, as Smith realised. Frequently, these types of arguments evolve into huge fights in the newspapers, which is great for the newspapers because they can sell more copies. The fundamental capitalist- communist argument is like this. From the capitalist side, one gets the argument that the first priority is to get trade and industry to grow, after which everyone will benefit automatically. From the communist side, one gets the argument that the first priority is to take all available money and use it to benefit the poor – to lift them up and to close the inequality gap; business welfare is not our concern. So, you have another proton-proton diagram.

This type of thing happens a lot when scientific arguments get into the media and into the hands of nonscientific people. You often then get a case of: do not confuse me with the facts; I have already made up my mind.

Science is science – you cannot change the scientific truth because you do not like the answers that it provides. But many people do. Some will remember, way back, the phenomenon of Mad Cow Disease, more correctly called BSE. Some fellow, Michael Jacobs, in the July 24, 1996, edition of the UK’s The Guardian newspaper, said during the Mad Cow Disease saga: “Risk is not actually about probabilities at all. It’s about the trustworthiness of the institutions which are telling us what risk is.”

Hey, Mike, it is actually about probabilities, but I guess you are right about the institutions; that is why you need to listen to scientists, who know what they are doing. SHU Bowies, a fellow of the Royal Society, correctly wrote in The Times in 1996: “‘Possible’ should not be changed to ‘probable’, as has happened in the past.”

In mathematics, the term ‘probability’ has a very specific meaning, which is what Bowies was referring to. Some other fellow, Simon Jenkins, also in The Times, said in reference to the perceived risk of eating infected steak: “I want to know, from those more knowledgeable than I, where a steak stands alongside an oyster, a North Sea mackerel, a boiled egg and running for the bus.” He was dead right. That is what the public needs to know – not all the maths, which itself needs scientific interpretation.

Then, in the Weekly Telegraph, Boris Johnson, leader of the recent Brexit campaign, said: “I shall continue to eat beef. Yum, Yum.” Maybe he had the best answer.

Perhaps, we should note that, whereas every newspaper led with the Mad Cow Disease story, The Sun led with: “Charles won’t pay for Diana’s briefs.” Different folks have different focus.

The arguments over the sugar tax, nuclear radiation, water supplies, global warming, and so on, will continue, but many can be drawn like the two protons.