One of the perks of running a busy blog like this one is the fact that the most original insults come your way. One of the best in this genre is probably comparing me to Donald Trump. Our “friend” Dana Ulman is not the only one, but he does that with some regularity. For example, he recently commented this little gem: “It seems that you are now emulating America’s liar-in-chief, Donald Trump. Should I now call you Edzard Trump?! Yep, he has adopted you…OR you have adopted him!”.
As this comparison is not an isolated occurrence, I better deal with it properly. Allow me therefore to attempt my own comparison between Edzard Ernst and Donald Trump. I find the comparison intriguing, if only as a study in how thoroughly opposites can be confused.
Trump’s relationship with the truth is famously transactional: facts are useful when they flatter and dispensable when they do not. In contrast, I have spent my career demonstrating that facts and truth have the habit of existing independently of one’s preferences. Where Trump manufactures certainty, I try to interrogate it.
Both Trump and I are accused of promoting “untruths”. In Trump’s case, the accusation reflects a well-documented indifference to reality. In my case, it typically signals that a proponent of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) is displeased with the conclusions of my research.
Our rhetorical styles further widen the gulf, I hope. Trump’s language inflates, while mine tries to deflate. Trump deals in selfishly exaggerated declarations (e.g. “the best,” “the greatest,” “nobody knows more”). I usually prefer the quieter approach of citing and explaining the data, allowing the evidence to dismantle cherished beliefs without raising its voice.
Criticism, too, is handled differently, I think. Trump counters it with more lies, denial or insult; I normally try to respond with evidence and rational arguments, an approach that is arguably more irritating, as it leaves less room for theatrical rebuttal. After all, it is difficult to argue with a meta-analysis without first reading and understanding it.
If there is a shared trait, it is our ability to provoke. Yet even here, the symmetry is illusory. Trump provokes by disregarding evidence; I often try to provoke by insisting on it. The former invites belief without proof; the latter demands proof before belief.
It therefore appears that likening me to Trump (or vice versa) serves less as an argument than as an all too transparent attempt to avoid one. Still, I must confess a certain appreciation for its unintended comedy. In that spirit, I am tempted to thank Dana – and to encourage him to continue, if only in the hope that his future contributions might prove even more entertaining.
Keep up the good work, Dana!
And feel free to call me whatever you like.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Leave a Reply