For when all combine in every way to make everything easier, there remains only one possible danger, namely, that the ease becomes so great that it becomes altogether too great;
[………….], I understood that that was my assignment: to create difficulties, everywhere.

Søren Kierkegaard (written under the pseudonym Johannes Climacus)

The quote above are the first lines of Frictie: Ethiek in tijden van dataïsme, a book by Miriam Rasch [1]. Dutch philosopher Rasch argues that converting the world into data leads to impoverishment. She believes that friction is essential for the creation of new valuable things.

As we’ve stated in our introduction, this book is not intended to criticize the use of the analysis paradigm in science. It has yielded tremendous results, after all. We do, however, criticize the one-sided focus on analysis, which eclipses another valuable approach: the synthesis paradigm. Compared to the analytical approach, synthesis is still in its infancy.
We believe that dedicating more attention to synthesis could benefit science as a whole. And, as Gaudenzi stated [2]: classical calculations can be improved by looking at quantum processes. The knowledge paradox, the limitations of models and algorithms, and the varying results of replication studies do not mean that something is wrong, but something is missing.

Criticizing institutions that have longstanding and very successful track records can be a delicate issue. Especially in this day and age, referred to as the ‘post-truth’ era, meaning: experts and institutions are no longer trusted, and opinions and fantasies, ‘alternative facts’, take precedence over real facts. Sociologist Jaron Harambam researched conspiracy thinking, resulting in a dissertation on this phenomenon, and in the informative book Contemporary Conspiracy Culture, Truth and Knowledge in an Era of Epistemic Instability [3].

Harambam’s approach was somewhat unconventional. He did not want, as often happens, to portray people with deviant ideas about ‘The Truth’ as crazy or unhinged. He didn’t pass judgements, pathologize or offer psychiatric diagnoses.  He refrained from expressing opinions like: “paranoid personality”, “it arises from a traumatic experience” or “a theory as a substitute belief”. Instead, he investigated the phenomenon by talking to people, approaching them as a person who was genuinely interested in their beliefs because he didn’t know much about it. In doing so, he discovered that it is impossible to generalize conspiracy theorists. As it turned out, high percentages of the population in Western countries admit that they think there may be some truth to theories of the anti-vaccination movement, ideas about the deliberate manufacture and release of harmful viruses, or the belief that pharmaceutical companies are able to cure a lot of diseases but refuse to do so to make higher profits. Science deniers and conspiracy theorists can be found on the left and the right side of the political spectrum. There are low-skilled and highly educated people amongst their ranks. And scientists are also prone to dogmatic ideas and can mistrust dissenters. Harambam advises us to broach the subject of conspiracy thinking at a party or at work. In doing so, you will find that almost everyone knows somebody who adheres to conspiracy theories or who at the very least believes that these ideas hold some truth.

In an interview in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant [4], Harambam argues that we as a society should keep talking with science deniers and conspiracy theorists. And not (only) about the subjects we disagree about, but precisely about the matters that are of shared concern to us.
The issues involved are complex. The climate crisis or the corona pandemic, for instance, are two complicated issues for which science lacks a clear-cut answer. According to Harambam, we should involve everyone who has an opinion about these matters. When you exclude people, Harambam argues, you feed mistrust and incite polarization. Demagogues are a different story, he says. They deliberately feed insecurity in society and take advantage of people who don’t feel heard.

It is often said that science deniers or conspiracy theorists are beyond reason, that they are so entrenched in their own beliefs that they resist to engage in any form of normal communication. But you could also make the argument that people who are so concerned about the current state of affairs aren’t ignorant, but actually very much involved in the world around them. In our training courses on the solution-focused approach, we (the authors) often discuss the concept of resistance with our training participants. Unlike traditional psychotherapies, which are based on the medical model, the solution-focused approach excludes the concept of resistance [5]. It is assumed that there is always cooperation, even when, for example, the client rejects the advice of the practitioner. The rejection merely proves that the practitioner’s advice doesn’t match with the client needs. If you see resistance, you cannot see cooperation; if you see cooperation, you cannot see resistance. Although this is a new concept for many training participants, it is usually readily understood: a client’s resistance does not have to be overcome, he or she may want to follow a different approach. A surprising insight can arise when one asks about the other person’s point of view, resulting in new and sometimes very good ideas.

A man with diabetes was referred to a general practitioner, because the target values ​​were not achieved with maximum use of tablets. The next step in the protocol is insulin therapy.

The solution-focused general practitioner asks: “What is the purpose of your visit?”
The man: “I have to start insulin.”
“That’s possible,” says the doctor.
The man: “But I don’t want insulin.”
“So what do you want?” the doctor asks.
The man: “I want less medication.”
“How do you want to achieve that?” the doctor asks.
“I definitely have to lose weight,” says the man.
“That will certainly be helpful,” replies his doctor.
“They say I should eat lettuce. But I won’t.”
“So what could you do?”
The man: “Will it help if I stop drinking beer?”
You can guess the answer: he stopped drinking beer.

This book is about complexity and issues to which there is no single answer. Jaron Harambam has studied polarization concerning conspiracy theories and the denial of science. His research shows that polarization thrives in a climate where people who worry feel excluded. He advises involving as many dissenters as possible when addressing complex issues. However, not with the aim of convincing each other. That doesn’t work well with complex cases. This is similar to what we discussed earlier about the cause-and-effect approach (arguments) in processes where many intertwined causes and effects play a role. Harambam believes that we should question each other about what we hope to achieve. This resonates with the solution-focused approach in which questions about the preferred future play a central role. This attitude is also in tune with Nelson Mandela’s statement ‘If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.’

The climate crisis just happened to us. It wasn’t the result of some sinister conspiracy.  Industrial agriculture, deforestation and our addiction to fossil fuels are to blame. And now it seems that datafication is happening to us too. And again, there is no conspiracy that causes this. Perhaps the idea that everything is calculable and manufacturable is too appealing. Paraphrasing Kierkegaard: Maybe the ease becomes too great.