Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for April 10, 2017

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Russia has failed in that commitment and the result of their failure has led to the killing of more children and innocents.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is not alone in blaming Russia's inaction for fueling last week's deadly chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians. The British defence secretary is also pointing out the Kremlin, saying Russia bore responsibility by proxy. And yet, the lines are drawn in a familiar pattern with Iran condemning the US attacks. As a new week begins with a planned US diplomatic visit to Moscow, we're asking about the longer term implications and expectations created by President Trump's decision to bomb after the sarin gas attack. The tragedy of the Syrian civil war follows a path of conflict from 9/11 to the subsequent war in Afghanistan and then the US invasion of Iraq. And one man from that decade uttered a phrase that became famous.

SOUNDCLIP

There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know.

AMT: The then-US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was talking about war, but Steven Sloman says he could have been talking about anything because most of us do not know what we do not know. I'll prove it in an hour. Also today, she went to her doctor looking for help with a sinus problem and was given an examination she later reported as sexual assault.

SOUNDCLIP

I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how to react. I froze. I had sort of an inner dialogue going on at the time which is basically saying you've got to get out of here. You have to get out of here. This is wrong.

AMT: In half an hour, we examine the disciplining of doctors at the point where the courts and their own regulatory colleges diverge. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Russia and Iran closer allies in wake of Syria attack, says expert

Guests: Ivan Nechepurenko, Malcolm Nance, Houchang Hassan-Yari

AMT: Well, last week's US airstrikes against Syria continues to dominate discussion among world leaders and officials in the Trump administration. The US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley was asked this key question on CNN's State of the Union yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: Is regime change in Syria now the official policy of the United States?

VOICE 2: So there's multiple priorities. Getting Assad out is not the only priority. And so what we're trying to do is obviously defeat ISIS. Secondly, we don't see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there. Thirdly, get the Iranian influence out. And then finally move towards a political solution because at the end of the day, this is a complicated situation. There are no easy answers and a political solution is going to have to happen. But we know that there is not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime.

AMT: Well, the situation is expected to be discussed further tomorrow when the US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson heads to Moscow to meet with Russia's foreign minister. Today Britain's foreign secretary Boris Johnson is meeting with his G7 counterparts to prepare a list of sanctions that Mr. Tillerson will or could it take as a message to Moscow. Today we are asking whether Washington's actions represent a turning point in Syria's six-year-old conflict or a dangerous escalation. There is a dizzying array of players that has a role in the Syrian conflict, from the state players—Russia to Iran, Turkey to the US—then of course the non-state players—notably ISIS and rebel groups that want a democratic Syria. To help us make sense of this and anticipate where this might go, I'm joined by three people. Ivan Nechepurenko is a journalist who writes for the New York Times. We've reached him in Moscow. Houchang Hassan-Yari is a professor in Middle East politics and international relations at the Royal Military College of Canada. He joins us from Muscat, Oman today. And Malcolm Nance is a retired US intelligence officer. He is the executive director of the Terror Asymmetrics Project, a counterterrorism think tank. He is in Hudson, New York. Hello, everyone.

MANY VOICES: Hello.

AMT: Ivan Nechepurenko, I want to start with you. How has the view of President Trump changed in Moscow since that airstrike?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Well, it has changed quite dramatically. I mean it has been changing before but I think the airstrikes have signified a drastic turnaround for Russian pro-Kremlin political analysts and talking heads on the Russian state TV. From bromance, from the times when they were drinking champagne in the Russian parliament when Trump got elected, they have just turned around, basically using the same rhetoric against Trump as they were using against his predecessor Barack Obama now.

AMT: So do they know how to read Mr. Trump now?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Yeah. I think they completely misread him when he got elected. They just believed what he was saying and they were hoping that he is going to let him a free hand in Syria, the Middle East and Ukraine. And of course Trump appears to be acting from his own self-interest or from the self-interest of the United States. And this seems to be something that people in Russia—the decision makers and policy makers in Russia—did not expect.

AMT: Malcolm Nance, there seem to be mixed messages coming from the Trump administration from Mr. Tillerson from Ms. Haley. What do you make of this?

MALCOLM NANCE: Well, initially I just thought it was the typical confusion that appears to reign in the White House. But I'm starting to wonder whether it's actually a strategy. Donald Trump has always set his objectives, certainly in his very renowned TV show The Apprentice, where he would pit two competing ideas against each other and then come in the end and choose one. And this week we saw literally flip-flopping day after day. One day they were completely against the Assad regime. The next day they were for the Assad regime and then after the airstrike, we're back to a dramatic talk of regime change. So I think that this may in fact be a measure of confusion because they are an amateur group and it may also be a measure of being able to destabilize the geopolitical body politic and eventually settle on something that gives him political cover from both sides of the aisle. I mean certainly the people who believe that the United States should have attacked Syria and have a hard line on Syria, while at the same time it gives him a good opportunity to reward Russia because if Russia comes out and offers to finally fully deweaponize Syria of its chemical weapons, then that gives him leverage to lift sanctions against Russia, as he constantly states that Russia should be rewarded for their good acts. So it's a form of political kabuki from the air strike right down to whatever is going to happen in the coming week with Tillerson’s visit to Moscow.

AMT: That unpredictability though would rely on predictability from the other players, would it not?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Yes, it certainly would. But you also have to understand that this White House has almost a passionate distain for the political norms of the world that have kept it stable for the last 70 years. And that's principally because Steve Bannon, the president's senior political adviser, is sort of a political anarchist. He believes in the disestablishment and the devolution of the entire political state in the United States. So that instability as far as they're concerned, so long as they're doing it, they think that they're being clever and that they are keeping the world on its toes, so to speak. But in fact they're hurting themselves, they've hurt their credibility. And certainly with that failure of an air strike, they certainly haven't gotten the Syrian regime to change their opinion of it.

AMT: Houchang Hassan-Yari, you track the political climate in Iran. We've seen Iran condemn those airstrikes. As you listen to Malcolm Nance, what are you thinking in terms of how Iran will respond to this, what it might do?

HOUCHANG HASSAN-YARI: Iran has a very limited capability to respond by force to what the Americans did, although we see big verbal inflation coming out of Tehran. Khamenei, the leader accusing the Americans to be the creators of Daesh, ISIS, and now they try to destabilize the regime in Damascus. Tehran knows very well and I think they took notes of this attack on the Syrian territory by the Americans because before that, Iran itself used to test Americans. We know that they benefitted immensely—the Iranians benefited immensely—from the previous administration in Washington. President Obama was not challenging by using different language in terms of use of military force and so forth. Now they see a completely different picture. So I believe they are worried about the situation and whatever they say, including this declaration with Russians talking about the red line and so forth. I don't think really Tehran is going to be in a position to do something drastic in order to defend its somehow protégé, the regime in Damascus.

AMT: Well, Russia and Iran have been key allies to Syria so far. What's the relationship between the two since the strikes?

HOUCHANG HASSAN-YARI: Warmer, closer out of necessity, I would say. Both countries, they are somehow isolated in the region of the Middle East. They need each other. And the crisis in Syria created a great opportunity for both to revive their regional policy. So the level of official exchange between the two regimes has risen drastically between Moscow and Russia and Tehran. And consequently, that took Iran to give access to its airbases to the Russian air force to bomb the Syrian opposition. This is the first time that such a thing happened since the Second World War in Iran. And that offer is being reiterated just recently by the Iranian foreign minister who is talking about giving again access to the air bases to Russians. President Rouhani is condemning what the Americans did in Syria. But I would say that their response is extremely measured and if we put that in the context of the Islamic Republic, we probably realize that is a very clear indication of the limits of their options.

AMT: Okay. So Ivan Nechepurenko, the meeting tomorrow between Mr. Tillerson and the Russian foreign minister, Mr. Lavrov, what do you expect to come out of that?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Well, of course we expect that we're going to see a bit more clarity about what the United States is planning on doing in the near future because of what happened last week, this brisk bombing that was very unexpected. So I think the main question will be whether this can repeat itself in the near future. And also the question is to what extent the US is actually going to be active in Syria. Because ever since Trump was elected, it seems that Russia has felt that they can do whatever it wants, together with its key ally Iran. Now there’s an institutional change and I think the aim of this visit and what Russian officials are going to get from Tillerson tomorrow will be this clarity on what they really want to get in Syria and what this leaves for Russia and what kind of space it leaves for Russia.

AMT: Is there any room for the US and Russia to be on the same side and want Assad out?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Well, there was hope before this happened that the US and Russia will target the Islamic State and other terrorist groups first and think about Syria and Assad second. But it seems that the two are now tied together. This is also one of the questions: to what extent the US actually does want Assad to be out soon or get ready to beg him for a while until the main problem is solved—the problem of terrorism in the area.

AMT: Is there any expectation that Russia might do something—retaliation may not be the right word— but to flex its own muscles after that airstrike?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Well, the thing is that Russia has very limited options militarily. It can expand its air defense systems to include more of Syrian territory, but I don’t think it can [unintelligible] cover the whole territory of Syria. And even the fact that those cruise missiles would be able to travel and circumvent the whole Russian systems, a very little capability that Russia has in Syria at the moment, despite all the talk here, official talk on the state television. So the options are limited and so far have been limited to largely symbolic historical things.

AMT: We do know that US airstrikes against ISIS need Russian cooperation in terms of actually navigating in the air.

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Yes, of course.

AMT: Yeah. And they have pulled that or they say they’ll pull that cooperation.

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: They stated that they have pulled out, but also local experts say that informally that such—[unintelligible] cooperation has been ongoing despite the whole declarations about not doing that anymore.

AMT: So Malcolm Nance, you make the point that the Trump administration likes a bit of anarchy mixed into everything else. What are the dangers there? Do you see any unintended consequences?

MALCOLM NANCE: Well, all I can see are unintended consequences. This is not an administration that thinks. This is an administration that lashes out, that reacts. And as we saw from the air strike this week, they lashed out on the basis of well, their explanation was that it was in motion overseeing dead Syrian children which is interesting considering that Syrian children were dying by the hundreds when they didn't seem to have any problem with Russia helping Syria bomb the city of Aleppo and carry out its attacks over the last few years. I mean Trump during the campaign made it very clear that this was Russia's problem, this was Syria’s problem and the United States shouldn't get involved with it. So I think that this week's action may actually be more of an interesting dynamic that's going on between his daughter Ivanka who's now working in the White House, her husband Jared Kushner who's a senior adviser and Trump himself. But there's nothing but danger for the United States at this point with regards to the way that the Trump administration is conducting itself and I'm saying that as an intelligence professional. You know the reason that we have had the measure of stability that we've had since World War II—even with its proxy wars and acts of terrorism and small scale wars—is because there is a belief that stability is the most important thing for nations to grow and for markets to remain solid. The Trump administration does not seem to subscribe to that position and that's why they are in constant conflict—not only politically at home and with the intelligence community—but with some of our closest allies. And Donald Trump's admiration for Vladimir Putin, for a form of autocratic government where he can act like a CEO and point and make things happen are now coming into direct conflict with that stability that's been in place since World War II. And I think the excitement of it for some of the people in his administration—some of whom should have no business whatsoever being in any form of government, completely unqualified. We have a saying in the intelligence community for people who think that the world operates like a movie. We call it Tom Clancy combat. They have this belief that the world should operate like a Tom Clancy novel. And when you snap your finger, fighter jets appear and you defeat your enemies in seconds. The Korean peninsula situation—and trust me I'm a terrorism expert—nothing terrifies me more than the instability that Trump's own words has caused on the Korean Peninsula.

AMT: So let me ask you, Malcolm Nance. We have the G7 foreign ministers meeting today. Is there a disconnect between what they expect of Mr. Tillerson in a Trump administration as Mr. Tillerson heads to Moscow?

MALCOLM NANCE: I absolutely think that there's they're going to find that Secretary Tillerson does not speak for the president. We have seen time and time again that the key player is not Tillerson. He actually has virtually no state department senior staff. They have filled none of the deputy positions, none of the advisory positions and they don't seem to particularly care about the term “diplomacy”. Diplomacy now is being carried out by Trump’s jack of all trades, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law with the advice of his daughter Ivanka. They can meet at the G7 conference, but I’m pretty sure the United States position will be no clearer today than it will be tomorrow and this is intensely dangerous for the entire world.

AMT: So Ivan Nechepurenko, what are you watching for as this meeting gets closer?

IVAN NECHEPURENKO: Well, as I was saying before, of course we need to get a bit more information about what was the real motive behind the attack. As my colleague was saying before, there were reasons for the US to do what it did before as well. So there must be a reason for this turn around and we want to know what really triggered it and whether it signifies a drastic change of policy toward Russia, whether we are going to do what we had for the last three years, at least since 2014 since the Ukraine crisis.

AMT: Okay. Ivan, we will have to leave it there. We're out of time. Thank you, all of you, for your thoughts today. I've been speaking with Ivan Nechepurenko, journalist with the New York Times. He's in Moscow. Houchang Hassan-Yari is a professor in Middle East politics and international relations at the Royal Military College of Canada. He's in Muscat, Oman today. Malcolm Nance, retired US intelligence officer and executive director of the Terror Asymmetrics Project, a counterterrorism think tank. He is in Hudson, New York. Stay with us. The news is next. And when we're back, the patients who are speaking out about doctors accused of sexual impropriety who are still being allowed to practice. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

Patients speak out about doctors accused of sexual impropriety still being allowed to practice

Guests: Temerra Dixon, Lorian Hardcastle

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. And you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, most of us think we have a pretty good handle on how the world works. But when it comes down to it, it turns out we know very little about a lot of things. We're talking about the knowledge illusion in half an hour. But first, disciplining doctors.

SOUNDCLIP

I would be very skeptical what I was going to him for. If you're looking at an ear or something like that, it's not so bad. He’s a physician. He knows either it’s infected or it’s not. However, you know if you had some more personal issues going on, I don't think I would trust him to go in there and have him fully look you over or examine you.

AMT: That is Megan Clarke of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where some residents are thinking about their doctor differently. Dr. Rafid Al-Nassar, a local family physician has been accused of a disturbing violation of trust—secretly planting a video camera in the women's staff washroom at his clinic. The doctor is facing a charge of voyeurism. His next court appearance is in May. The allegations have not been proven in court. In the meantime, he is allowed to practice with restrictions. The situation has made some of his patients uneasy. But in a town where it is hard to find a GP, some patients are sticking with him and speaking out in support of him, including Karen Hekman.

SOUNDCLIP

I want him as my doctor. He is a very nice person. Really if I wasn't feeling this strongly about him not being able to do a thing like that—voyeurism. I can't believe. And you know I'm not the youngest of persons. I have a lot of experience. I know people. I feel for him. I have talked to people and they agree with me. They say we shouldn't lose a doctor like that. It doesn't match. It doesn't fit. Do you see what I mean?

AMT: Well, the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Nova Scotia temporarily suspended the doctor's license when charges were laid. It has since ruled he is allowed to practice again with some conditions— he must post a sign warning patients he needs supervision in both his waiting area and examination rooms. He must have a chaperone present while treating patients. In fact, he is not practicing at the moment but the college defends its position that he be allowed to under those conditions. Dr. Gus Grant is the college's registrar and CEO.

SOUNDCLIP

We take these matters really, really seriously and the nature of the criminal charges are alarming and disturbing. So in this case, the very nature of the charges—they’re really only that now, they’re only charges—the very nature of the charges was enough for the committee to be satisfied that steps had to be taken. And the steps were, upon learning of these charges, a committee was formed immediately and Dr. Al-Nassar was suspended immediately. Dr. Al-Nassar had the right to appear a committee. At that stage, we revisited the decision to suspend and impose these restrictions while the investigation goes on. So the college does not have the legislative authority to have a zero tolerance approach simply to accusations that have not been proven or founded.

AMT: Dr. Gus Grant of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Nova Scotia addressing concerns about a family doctor still practising after being charged with voyeurism. We requested an interview with Dr. Al-Nassar. He did not return our calls. Disciplining doctors is a controversial subject across the country. Ontario has seen a number of cases of doctors accused of sexual abuse who have been allowed to keep practising, often after a period of suspension and with conditions. Following these cases and an ensuing task force, the Ontario government has introduced a bill aimed at changing how doctors are disciplined. Temerra Dixon has a story of her own to share. It begins in 2010 with a visit to the doctor gone wrong and it turns out she was not alone. Allegations against her doctor first led the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to place conditions on his licence in 2011, restricting his interaction with female patients. In 2013—the doctor Dr. Javad Peirovy—was criminally convicted of simple assault in relation to behaviour with two of his patients after incidents in 2009 and 2010. The college also investigated and in 2015, its discipline committee found that he had sexually abused four patients—including the woman with whom I'm about to speak—by touching their breasts inappropriately. The college asked to revoke his licence, but the discipline committee deemed him at low risk of reoffending and suspended his licence for six months last year and allowed him to continue practicing with conditions. Those conditions include having a college-approved female chaperone when seeing female patients and receiving training on consent and maintaining boundaries. His penalty is up for appeal as the college still wants his licence revoked. I mentioned Temerra Dixon. She is with me in Toronto. Hello.

TEMERRA DIXON: Hi.

AMT: You went to the doctor back in 2010 because you weren't feeling well. What happened during that examination?

TEMERRA DIXON: Well, I went in. It started off as what I would have thought as a normal examination. I wasn't feeling well. I had an earache, headache, some congestion in the chest as well. I sat up on the table and it started off pretty normal—checked my ears, throat. But then things got strange. He asked me to remove my shirt which is an odd request—given checking lungs and chest, I've always had it over clothing or maybe slightly under but not to fully remove clothing—and asked me to lay back. This was a strange request but it's a doctor so I trusted him and I did as he said. So I lay back on the table. This is where he took the stethoscope between his thumb and second and third finger and he placed it over my breast and while he was doing this, it was sort of under my bra. He cupped the top part of my breast and with his pinky finger and his finger before that he put pressure on my nipple. I call this a tweaking feeling. And so he did that and then proceeded to do it on the opposite breast as well. At this point, I was in complete shock. I didn't know how to react. I froze which I found strange for me.

AMT: You didn't say anything to him.

TEMERRA DIXON: I didn't. No, I froze completely. I was automatically—the alarm bells were going off in my head. I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how to react. I froze. I had sort of an inner dialogue going on at the time which is basically saying you've got to get out of here. You have to get out of here. This is wrong. You need to leave. Eventually once he was done with his exam, I got up. I got myself dressed. I did receive a prescription that day and had some really odd conversation with him. I don't remember the exact words, but I was feeling really uncomfortable and I left.

AMT: Did he refer to what had happened at all?

TEMERRA DIXON: No.

AMT: Okay. And you left and your partner was waiting for you in the waiting room?

TEMERRA DIXON: He was. Yes.

AMT: And what did you say? What happened next?

TEMERRA DIXON: I just gave him a very urgent stare to, we got to get out. And so I didn't say anything until we got down to street level where I basically unloaded. I was angry. I was upset at myself that I didn't do anything. I was angry and just generally upset. I didn't know what to do.

AMT: Did you make a complaint?

TEMERRA DIXON: So the following day I went on the CPSO website and I looked at how to file a complaint. It basically said I had to write a formal letter. I guess somebody would review it and eventually somebody would get back to me. It didn't seem like there was much urgency. So I didn't follow through.

AMT: The CPSO meaning the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

TEMERRA DIXON: Yes.

AMT: Did you go to the police?

TEMERRA DIXON: No. And this is strange but I really didn't feel—I know now that I should have gone to the police. But at the time I felt like the college was the place I needed to go to because they are the ones who were looking after the doctors. Obviously in hindsight, I see now, I could have gone to the police and that should have probably been my first action.

AMT: But you were confused.

TEMERRA DIXON: I was.

AMT: Yeah. So you didn't file a complaint at that time.

TEMERRA DIXON: No, I didn’t.

AMT: Okay. When was the next time you saw the doctor?

TEMERRA DIXON: So I saw his face on TV. One day I was watching the news and I saw him come up on the TV. He had been, I guess, accused of some form of sexual assault. I'm not too sure where but I didn't even need to know anymore. I saw his image on the TV and I knew exactly who he was and what had happened. And I immediately called the police.

AMT: And what happened after that?

TEMERRA DIXON: I went through a police interview, went through the criminal court with him and being a witness. And that whole process which was you know kind of intimidating and scary on its own.

AMT: So you went to the police to say you were—they were asking for people to come forward?

TEMERRA DIXON: Yes.

AMT: And so they took a statement from you?

TEMERRA DIXON: They did.

AMT: And they added you to the charges?

TEMERRA DIXON: They did.

AMT: Okay. Keep going.

TEMERRA DIXON: Okay. So I went through the court system and that was very intimidating and hard. But I was glad that I did. That was a difficult situation. What happened was the Crown was able or they wanted to plea deal and so they had called me one evening, the Crown, and they had asked are you okay if we take this plea deal? He will plead guilty to simple assault and then that will be his guilt and we don't have to proceed any further.

AMT: When did the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario become involved?

TEMERRA DIXON: A year and a half after he was found guilty. That's when they decided to do their own internal investigation. Before that, they did put restrictions on him. I had no involvement in that. They did that automatically due to the nature of the case. But for them to do their own internal investigation, it took them a year and a half after he was found guilty.

AMT: And when he was found guilty in the criminal court, did he serve any time?

TEMERRA DIXON: No. So he had probation, 18 months I believe. He was allowed to continue practising.

AMT: What did you think of how the college was handling this?

TEMERRA DIXON: I thought it was a little pathetic. I think they were too slow to really do their own internal investigation and apply a penalty that was fitting.

AMT: Knowing what you know now. would you have done something differently the day you left that office?

TEMERRA DIXON: Certainly. I would have called the police right away. I think that was first and foremost the way I should have gone. And I see that now because they’ll act immediately whereas the college, I don't know when they'll get around to it.

AMT: Well, as we said, the College of Physicians and Surgeons asked to have the licence of your doctor revoked. The discipline committee of the college found him to be low risk to re-offend and it suspended his registration for six months. It imposed conditions on him. It now requires a female monitor to be present in any professional encounter with female patients. It's required instruction on issues of consent and the maintenance of boundaries, doctor-patient communication. What do you think of tha?

TEMERRA DIXON: I think it's ridiculous. I think he needs his licence revoked. He has broken trust and there's no going back from that. He needs to have a nurse practitioner with him at all times and they think he's low risk to re-offend? The fact that he needs to have somebody with him proves there's a real problem there.

AMT: Now the college is still seeking to have the doctor's licence revoked. It appealed the decision from the discipline committee. There is going to be a penalty hearing later this year. So they still are working on it. What are your thoughts on them appealing their own committee?

TEMERRA DIXON: I think it's strange. I think it's great that they're moving forward and hopefully being able to revoke his licence. I think that's fantastic. But I think it's a very strange process that the college doesn't have the power to revoke his licence initially.

AMT: So he continues to practice under restrictions placed on him in 2013.

TEMERRA DIXON: Yes. He does.

AMT: What does that tell you?

TEMERRA DIXON: That they've done a whole lot of nothing.

AMT: How has this affected you when you visit a doctor now?

TEMERRA DIXON: Well, now I am more cautious. I'm also a little wary of people just in general. Anybody who's sort of in a position of not necessarily power but trust, like somebody who I would trust, I always have this second thought about them. And that follows with me throughout life.

AMT: The Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins has introduced a new bill that is proposing changes to how Ontario disciplines its doctors. What do you hope comes from that?

TEMERRA DIXON: Well, I really hope—and he hasn't made a commitment to this—but I really hope that they have a separate panel that's not tied with the CPSO to handle the sex abuse cases. I mean they've shown that they're unable to deal with these in a timely manner, these cases, and they're clearly unable to hand down penalties that makes sense, that fit the actions that the doctor has taken.

AMT: So some kind of panel that would not be under the umbrella of the physicians and surgeons.

TEMERRA DIXON: Right. Because there seems to be just a slight conflict of interest there and things aren’t working properly. It's broken.

AMT: It's been a long journey for you, huh?

TEMERRA DIXON: It has. It's been a lot of years.

AMT: Well, thank you for telling us your story.

TEMERRA DIXON: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Temerra Dixon in Toronto. We called Dr. Javad Peirovy to request an interview. He did not agree to speak with us. He is still practising with restrictions while he waits for the appeal to be heard in September. We also asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for an interview. It declined, citing the ongoing nature of the case against the doctor. It also wrote that the College of Physicians and Surgeons “takes sexual abuse cases very seriously and is committed to change that protects patients from sexual abuse by physicians.” Well, as I mentioned, the Ontario government has tabled a bill designed to change how health professionals are disciplined. The Protecting Patients Act passed second reading last week. While some critics say it does not go far enough, it has been welcomed as a step in the right direction one that other provinces may want to copy given the patchwork of rules across the country on the disciplining of doctors. Lorian Hardcastle is the associate director of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics and an assistant professor of law at the University of Ottawa and she is in Ottawa. Hello.

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Hi.

AMT: How unusual is it that a doctor with a criminal conviction related to his patients and a finding of sexual abuse of patients by a college is allowed to practice with restrictions?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Well, unfortunately it is not all that rare. The college, both in Ontario and colleges across the country, have made extensive use of the power to allow doctors to continue to practise with conditions. I would say though that the opposite is also very true, that often times the college disciplines for things that would clearly constitute criminal conduct but that criminal charges are never laid.

AMT: Hmm. Well, how would Ontario's proposed legislation change how doctors and health professionals are disciplined?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Yeah. So Ontario's legislation makes a number of changes. It expands the list of acts of sexual abuse that would require a mandatory revocation. And so there's been a lot of hindering of sort of the public trust by allowing the college to have discretion as to which punishment to impose. And so this would take some of that discretion out of the hands of the college and mandate that they revoke a licence for certain kinds of conduct. And so the most egregious types of conduct were already on that list. But this would expand the list to include things like touching a patient's breast or those sorts of things. The new bill would also affect the ability of the college to order gender-based restrictions. And so the colleges made very extensive use in the past of gender-based restrictions whereby a doctor is able to continue treating patients of the opposite gender of the complainant and the bill would remove the ability of the college to order these gender-based restrictions. And you know of course, the concern with these kinds of restrictions is first enforcement. There have been a number of cases in the past where despite the fact that these restrictions were in place, doctors continued to treat patients of the gender that they weren't supposed to be treating or didn't have a nurse present or hadn't posted the requisite signs. And so there have been enforcement issues. And the other concern with these gender-based restrictions is perhaps the offence that the doctor has committed related to a particular gender, but I think the fact that the doctor did that highlights broader concerns with their judgment.

AMT: Is the college obliged to get police involved with an allegation of sexual assault, given that sexual assault is in the Criminal Code?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: I would say Ontario is sort of somewhere in the middle on this. Some provinces do require mandatory reporting and then other provinces’ colleges don't even really have publicly available internal policies about these sorts of things.

AMT: I mean it seems a bit odd that the physicians and surgeons would get to decide what a crime is versus the police or the prosecution.

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Yeah, absolutely and I think part of the problem is that patients don't necessarily understand that that kind of reporting isn't going to happen. And so you know I've certainly heard from patients who felt like once they reported it to the college, it was getting taken care of or vice versa. Once they reported it to the police, it was getting taken care of both criminally and in terms of the doctor’s licences. So I think we're kind of putting this onus on the patients to understand that these two processes are separate and have to be pursued probably isn't where that onus should lie.

AMT: Do you think it's a problem for doctors to investigate and discipline other doctors when it comes to sexual abuse?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Well, absolutely. I think professional self-regulation in general is a trade-off whereby the colleges undertake to protect the public and their number one goal is to protect the public. And you know in exchange, they get the authority to self-regulate. And I think this issue of sexual abuse has highlighted that there are significant gaps in the public's trust.

AMT: We have a statement from Ontario's Health Minister Eric Hoskins and I'm going to read part of it. Here's the quote: “The relationship between a patient and their health care provider must be built upon a foundation of trust, confidence and safety. Our government introduced legislative amendments to strengthen, uphold and further reinforce zero tolerance policy on patient sexual abuse by any regulated health professional.” Do you think this bill will accomplish that when it's passed?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: I think it moves us in the right direction. I think we've expanded the offenses for which licenses can be revoked. We've reduced the reliance on things like gender-based restrictions. It moves us in the right in the right direction. But ultimately I think that even a perfectly crafted piece of legislation isn't going to be the total answer here. By definition, this legislation is sort of reactive and addresses problems once they've come to pass. I think there are broader cultural issues that would need to be addressed as well.

AMT: And well, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario says it has a zero tolerance approach to sexual abuse. What do you think of that?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: I think we're moving towards a zero tolerance approach. But they've been claiming they had a zero tolerance approach even prior to this to this legislation. So I think we're moving the needle towards zero tolerance for sure. But you know they've categorized their approach as zero tolerance since the early 1990s and that clearly isn't the case.

AMT: You've researched the disciplinary processes for doctors across the country. How consistent are the rules and regulations around how doctors are investigated and disciplined from province to province?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: They aren't particularly consistent and you know we've been poking holes here and in the Ontario process, but frankly Ontario has some of the strongest protections in the country. Other provinces have much different rules for example around what gets reported to the public online. So Ontario has some of the most detailed reporting of what appears on the college's website.

AMT: So what advice do you have for a patient who has a complaint about their doctor?

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Yeah. I would absolutely say that patients should complaint to the police. If they're not sure that what happened to them is in fact criminal level conduct, that's fine. The police will sort that out. You should err on the side of reporting. I would say that patients should also report to the colleges. Absolutely. And I know it's difficult for patients to report but you know I think the thing that patients need to know if they're on the fence about reporting is that if it's happened to you, it's probably happened to other patients and some of those other patients may not be in a position to report.

AMT: Lorian Hardcastle, thank you for your thoughts today.

LORIAN HARDCASTLE: Thank you for having me.

AMT: Lorian Hardcastle, an associate director of the Centre for Health Law, Policy and Ethics and assistant professor of law at the University of Ottawa. We did request an interview with Ontario's Health Minister Eric Hoskins. He was not available. Stay with us. Coming up in our next half hour, no matter how much you think you know, you're only as smart as everyone else is.

SOUNDCLIP

We think we know more than we do because we depend on others for our knowledge. So we're foragers for information. We use our bodies to think. We use the world to think. But more than anything, we use other people to think.

AMT: That is the theory of a new book, The Knowledge Illusion. I will speak to co-author Steven Sloman who says there's a great deal of value in knowing what you know but also in knowing what you don't know because someone else might know it. Confused? Stay with CBC Radio One. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[Music: Sting]

Why we think we know everything, a cognitive scientist explains

Guests: Steven Sloman

AMT: Hello. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti and this is The Current. In a minute, we'll be talking about the knowledge illusion. It turns out we don't always know as much as we think we know and that would include me. We'll find out the implications of that. But first, we have some feedback to share. As you can tell by my voice, I need some help. The Current’s producer John Chipman is with me this morning. Hi. John.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Hey, Anna Maria. I am here to serve.

AMT: Well, you start then.

JOHN CHIPMAN: So in that story, we talked about the growing mental stress caused by climate change. It's being called eco-anxiety and psychologists are starting to see symptoms of it from Nunavut to Australia to this woman in New York City.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I'm anxious all the time. I don't have a way to stop being anxious. I feel really embarrassed about being anxious. Nobody around me seems to be so anxious about this problem.

VOICE 2: Everything from strong emotional reactions where people are feeling alone and isolated and scared and afraid, to more chronic issues around depression and issues with anxiety, potential increases in substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, dealing with the trauma and shock of either acute weather events or longer-term changes in the environment. All the pathways in which a changing environment impacts the many different things that lead to someone's overall mental illness.

JOHN CHIPMAN: Those were the voices of Liz Galst who suffered from eco-anxiety followed by Ashley Cunsolo, the director of the Labrador Institute at Memorial University in St. Johns who studies the phenomenon. If you miss that conversation, find it on our website at www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. So after hearing it, Alison Kranias wrote to us from Ottawa: “We are all experiencing climate change to some degree no matter where we live. Here in Ottawa. the weather patterns have undergone a profound change. I am certainly not on the front lines of climate change, and I feel lucky to live where I don't have to worry about rising sea levels, out-of-control forest fires, or extreme hurricanes and tornadoes. But I loved the rhythm of the seasons when I grew up, and I grieve their loss.”

AMT: Janet Collins had a different perspective. She writes: “Well, that was a nice but meaningless talk about climate change. Most of us are far too consumed by our selfish selves to take climate change seriously. We ignore storms, drought, the loss of song birds. But do we care? No!”

JOHN CHIPMAN: And Candy Venning in Hamilton emailed. She writes: “My work as a landscape designer puts me in touch with a number of people who want to do something to help the planet. We're seeing folks ask us for native plants, rain gardens and permeable paving. These are all great steps, but for those that can't afford or don't have a garden available to them, may I suggest volunteering? Most every public space needs some kind of cleanup, weeding, planting, maintenance, and so on. The number one thing I've found to alleviate stress is to contribute in a positive and beneficial way with visible results.” In fact, that's also one of the suggestions from psychologists who treat people with anxiety over clients over climate change. Here again is Liz Galst.

SOUNDCLIP

My anxiety about climate change is significantly lower than it used to be. My psychologist taught me to just really to acknowledge what I was feeling. So he said you know if you're freaking out, take a step back and think: oh, I'm freaking out about this. Often that acknowledgement alone can really help you feel better. But he also talked about the difference between productive worry and unproductive worry. I was engaged in a kind of unproductive worry about the climate and so he taught me that one of the things that I could do was start doing some more productive things. I spoke to another psychologist also who works in eco-therapy and she said get involved in resisting that which isn't good. Whether those are you know small things like getting my friends to switch their electric supplier to a renewable energy provider or buying organic produce which the soil absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere, understanding that taking steps was also really, really helpful to me.

AMT: So that is Liz Galst. Thank you, John Chipman.

JOHN CHIPMAN: You bet.

AMT: Okay. We will keep on going. Do you experience eco-anxiety? Are concerns about climate change affecting your mental health? If you have something to share on this, let us know. Tweet us @thecurrentCBC, post on this story on Facebook, e-mail us by clicking on contact at www.cbc.ca/thecurrent.

[Music: Bridge]

AMT: You are listening to The Current on CBC Radio One and Sirius XM. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don't know.

VOICE 2: Excuse me. But is this an unknown unknown? There are several unknowns and I’m just wondering if this is an unknown unknown.

[Crosstalk]

VOICE 1: I am not going to say which it is.

AMT: Donald Rumsfeld's now infamous answer to questions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2002 when he was the US defense secretary. As confusing as his answer was, my next guest says the former defense secretary was on to something unique about the nature of human knowledge. Steven Sloman is a professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University. He has co-written a new book called The Knowledge Illusion and he's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Hi, Anna Maria. Great to be here.

AMT: You know my mind reels when I hear that clip. It turns out we actually don't know that much.

STEVEN SLOMAN: We don't know that much. And in particular, we think we know a lot more than we in fact do.

AMT: Can you give me some examples that show how little we know about how the world works?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Absolutely. I can ask you: how well you understand how a toilet works. So let's say on a one to seven scale, how well do you think you know how a toilet works?

AMT: Okay, I'll say six.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Wow. Okay, great. So you really know how the toilet works.

AMT: I think I do. Do you want me to explain it?

STEVEN SLOMAN: So tell me. How does a toilet work?

AMT: Okay. Well, the water goes in the tank. So you have a pipe of water going in the tank and when you flush it, the pressure of the water in the tank flushes the debris in the toilet out. It goes down a pipe and into the sewage system. Am I right?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Not quite. In fact, toilet works by what's called a siphon effect. There's this inverted U-shape tube that comes out of the bowl. The tank puts water in the bowl which raises the level to that above the U-shaped tube and that causes this effect—the siphon effect—that actually physicists don't fully understand—

[Crosstalk]

AMT: Oh, now I don’t have to feel so bad.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Which sucks the water out of the bowl.

AMT: Okay. So it's not the pressure of the water.

STEVEN SLOMAN: It’s not the pressure of the water. Right.

AMT: I stand deeply corrected.

STEVEN SLOMAN: But actually the point of the example is most people are not as confident as you and as creative and most people don't actually come up with as elegant an explanation as you did. Most people when asked that question say you know what? I have no idea how a toilet works.

AMT: I thought I knew because I actually fixed one recently and I thought I really knew.

STEVEN SLOMAN: So most people think they know. But after trying to explain, they discover that they don't. So the act of explanation bursts their bubble of understanding.

AMT: So I am your perfect guinea pig.

STEVEN SLOMAN: You're my perfect guinea pig. Absolutely.

AMT: So I have a drawing of a bicycle. What do you do with this?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Fill it out. So you have a partial drawing of a bicycle. It's missing some parts. It's missing pedal, chain, part of the frame. Where did they go?

AMT: Okay. And I do have the filled out ones too so I’m not even going to pretend.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Okay. Those are filled out by other people. Those aren’t necessarily correct.

AMT: Right. So what are you looking for with the bicycle?

STEVEN SLOMAN: So if you look at those other images you have, you'll see that people have put the chain in the oddest of places. In one case or in more than one case, the chain goes not only around the back wheel but also around the front wheel. And I'm not sure exactly what you're looking at there, but in some cases the pedal in one case is at the top frame.

AMT: You’d have to pedal with your hands.

[Crosstalk]

STEVEN SLOMAN: You’d have to have very short legs or pedal with your hands.

AMT: Mhm.

STEVEN SLOMAN: That's right.

AMT: We will put these on our site: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent just to show what you've got as an example. That’s like the toilet example. We think we know.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Exactly. So this is a study that was done by Rebecca Lawson at the University of Liverpool and what she found is that people draw diagrams that are just bizarre. And even expert cyclists draw diagrams that are relatively bizarre. So even people who fix bicycles have trouble reproducing the shape of a bicycle when asked.

AMT: Why do you think that is?

STEVEN SLOMAN: I think it's because we think we know more than we do because we depend on others for our knowledge. So we're foragers for information. We use our bodies to think. We use the world to think. But more than anything, we use other people to think and the fact that other people understand how bicycles work give us the impression that we think we know how bicycles work.

AMT: And when it comes to a mechanical device, we get a little spoiled because we don't have to know eventually. We just have to hop on the bicycle.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Exactly. We live in a community of knowledge. There's a division of cognitive labour such that you know we have our own tiny little area of expertise, but other people have their areas of expertise. And in order to accomplish things, we work together.

AMT: So we can go back to the toilet example. As long as I know how to flush the thing, if it doesn't work I call the plumber.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Exactly.

AMT: Okay. What about history? Because you look at history as well, iconic figures of history. How much do we really know and understand about history?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Well, the same thing is true of history, that is we think we understand things like World War I and World War II and the invasion of Pearl Harbor much better than we do. And one way to find out is to try to explain say, the causes of World War I. Turns out it's incredibly complicated. Right? The world in general is incredibly complicated and so we depend on others for our understanding.

AMT: And so when you talk about depending on others, where is our knowledge stored?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Our knowledge is stored in our bodies, in the world itself. Here I am in Toronto and I'm navigating Toronto in part by using cues that are embedded in the city. But more than anything—and this is the focus of our book—the knowledge is stored in other people's heads. So thought is a process that operates between and across people. It's not something that goes on just inside the skull.

AMT: So what does that tell us about how we do our best work?

STEVEN SLOMAN: What it tells us is that to do our best work we have to rely on our communities. We have to take advantage of what other people know. And what that entails—you know I like the Rumsfeld piece that you did at the beginning because I think despite himself, he actually said something quite profound which is that the secret of knowledge is often knowing what you don't know. It's often obvious to us what we do know. After all, we know it. We're thinking about it. What's not so clear is what we don't know and so the secret of success is accessing the information that we really need.

AMT: And can you give some examples of where groups have produced work that couldn't have been achieved with just one person?

STEVEN SLOMAN: I think anything any human being ever does is an example of that. I mean we're doing that right now. We couldn't do what we're doing alone. When we cross the street, we depend on the thought process of the drivers who are who are coming at us. That's why we like making contact with drivers when we cross the street. If you think about major scientific discoveries—the discovery of the Higgs boson recently—involved literally thousands of physicists. And it wasn't just physicists. It was also engineers and custodians and telephone operators. I mean there were all kinds of people who were necessary for that sort of major scientific discovery. If you think about producing music, not only is music produced often by multiple people working together, but the instruments that they use depend on the skills of instrument makers and the music they create depends on the skills of composers and traditions of music that have been embedded in communities for eons.

AMT: So someone like Mozart, we might think he worked alone but of course he was working on an instrument.

STEVEN SLOMAN: He was working on an instrument. And not only that, but his musical ideas were ideas that were around during the time. He was surely a great creative genius, but he didn't pick his tunes out of thin air, so to speak. There was a kind of music around at the time that he plugged into and made use of.

AMT: Even at the age of four.

STEVEN SLOMAN: [laughs] Especially at the age of four.

[Crosstalk]

AMT: Because he was young right? But our brains are constantly pulling things in and processing but always needing other people. Let's talk about why we need to recognize this at this point in time.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Great question. Yeah. So as far as you know fixing our toilet is concerned, it's not that important because we manage with our toilets pretty successfully most of the time.

AMT: You know I'm never going to live that down. But keep going.

STEVEN SLOMAN: [laughs] I thought you did very well actually. I thought you did very well.

[Crosstalk]

AMT: Just the hubris. The hubris.

STEVEN SLOMAN: No. Toilet hubris is forgivable. Where hubris is not forgivable is in the political domain. When we have not only political leaders but voters who think they know things that they don't, then there's a problem. So here's the most serious problem: understanding is contagious. That's what I said earlier. And in fact we have very direct evidence that understanding is contagious. So with a student at Brown, a guy named [unintelligible] I ran a series of experiments in which we did the following. We told people about novel scientific phenomena, stuff that we had made up in fact, like a system of helium rain. Okay? So we said scientists have discovered this system of helium rain and in one case we said, “and they don't understand it. They have not explained it yet. How well do you understand it?” And under those conditions most people say I don't understand it at all, as they should because it's new to them. In another condition we said scientists have discovered the system of helium rain and they fully understand it. They fully explained it. How well do you understand it? So we gave them no information about the system. Just asked them how well they understand it, knowing that the scientists understand it. And under those conditions, their ratings of understanding went up a little bit. They didn't go really high, but they went up just a little bit as if the scientists’ understanding was contagious. They inherited a sense of understanding from the fact that the scientists understood. So we've also shown this with policies, with political policies. Knowing that experts understand the policy gives people a slightly higher sense that they understand the policy.

AMT: And we see this in politics all the time.

STEVEN SLOMAN: So imagine that everyone around you is telling you that the UK should leave the EU. They understand why the UK should leave the EU. So you're eventually going to have a sense of understanding why the UK should leave the EU and the people around you might have a sense of understanding because the people around them feel that they understand why the UK should leave the EU. So everybody's understanding depends on everybody else's sense of understanding which sometimes is built on a house of cards.

AMT: And we don't have to go across the pond for an example right now in politics. We can go over the border in the US. Did we not see in this last election—and you can see this in Canada—but we'll use the US as an example.

STEVEN SLOMAN: That’s safer.

AMT: I was just going to say it is safer. But the idea that a politician says it's this way, trust me, I'll take care of it—that becomes contagious.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Yes, absolutely. That becomes contagious. The politician’s own sense of understanding may be an effect of the sense of understanding of people around him which is essentially vacuous, which may be based on nothing.

AMT: So trade’s a mess is a good example. Donald Trump. Trade’s a mess, it's a terrible thing. It’s a disaster.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Donald Trump rarely demonstrates real understanding of things. That's absolutely true. Despite his great sense of confidence in his understanding, he is the primary example of the knowledge illusion.

AMT: We can also look at other areas of policy. We were talking science a moment ago. Things like climate change, the whole debate around vaccinations.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Yes.

AMT: It goes to this knowledge allusion as well, does it not?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Well, I think it does in the sense that you have people who have very strong beliefs about whether vaccinations cause autism or whether or not there will be climate change despite not understanding anything.

AMT: And despite science that's actually quite specific and actually does give us something to think about.

STEVEN SLOMAN: So in the case of vaccinations, it's absolutely clear that vaccinations do not cause autism. Most scientists believe that climate change is caused by humans. And the question is where do our attitudes about these things come from and if it's the case that those attitudes are simply reflections of what our community believes, then the question becomes what's our community. And so the essential argument we're making is that most of our beliefs are really just a reflection of our tendency to channel our community as opposed to reflecting a rational process of thought. And so the real issue is what is it that generates our community’s beliefs? Is it real hard science or is it some kind of self-interested expertise or claimed expertise that really has no foundation in fact?

AMT: So how do we work with this? How do we recognize in ourselves what our unknown unknowns are so that we can know some knowns?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Interesting question. Look, that's a critical question and I don't pretend to have a silver bullet and the book does not offer a silver bullet. But there are certain principles that I think we have to follow. One is to reach outside our bubbles. One is to try to get outside our echo chambers that that we normally sit in. But the other and perhaps more useful idea is to try to explain things to ourselves. Rather than just relying on the words we hear and rather than simply channeling what it is that we hear, try to really explain things to ourselves before we express strong views about things. So explanation is special because explanation involves getting outside yourself, thinking about the policy at hand, thinking about what its actual consequences are. Not what your reasons are for believing it, not what your values are, but rather what the actual effect of a policy or a politician is going to be.

AMT: You make the point that sometimes people get emotional and defensive about their beliefs, about their assumed knowledge as opposed to being open.

STEVEN SLOMAN: I think the main reason for that is that when we're challenged, we feel the need to defend our communities because we're not just speaking for ourselves. We're speaking for the people around us. We become representatives of our communities and we're emotionally tied to our communities.

AMT: So the idea, the point you make that we are natural collaborators, that we work together, can sometimes work against us.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Yes. When there is no real foundation to what it is that we're doing, I think it can work against us. But look, for the most part it works for us. We do live in communities. We create amazing things. We have fantastic recording studios and iPhones and laptops and humanity has gone to the moon and you know we're empowered. And that's something that we should revel in, I think.

AMT: How do we move forward? You know you're making us think about what we know, what we don't know, how we need to fill these gaps in. So what do you want us to think about in terms of absorbing information so that we can be better collaborators with more facts and knowledge?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Well, so I want, I think step one is to admit our lack of knowledge and to reduce our hubris, to accept the fact that we don't know everything and that to accomplish things, we have to make use of the people around us. I think that that's great leadership to appreciate that we have to take advantage of the skills around us and not expect ourselves to be expert in everything. But I think it's also great followership, to appreciate that you're one cog and other people are other cogs and we all have to work together. We can't expect ourselves to do it alone. It's not easy. I don't know if it's our culture or if it's our psychology, but we have a tendency to want to be experts in everything, to demonstrate knowledge whenever we're tested. And we have to accept that we can’t. It's great to learn. It's great to try. But we're limited creatures and life is easier because of it.

AMT: It makes us more human.

STEVEN SLOMAN: It makes us more human.

AMT: You know we talk about this with some issues of leadership right because leadership becomes this word that bosses must show, that politicians must show. And we look to one person and what we should be doing is looking to many people, I guess.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Absolutely. Whether we're talking the political domain, the musical domain, any artistic domain, the scientific domain, everything is accomplished by groups, by teams. And we’d probably be a little better off if we recognized that.

AMT: It also speaks to the whole issue of heroes, does it not?

STEVEN SLOMAN: Yes, it does.

AMT: Talk to me about that.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Well, we have a tendency to lionize individuals, right? In the book we talk about Martin Luther King Jr.—who was an amazing man, a fantastic man no doubt—but he didn't do it all alone. You know there were great political changes in the sixties in the States. There was a strong civil rights movement. But it was just that. It was a movement. And if we really want to understand civil rights, if we want to understand history, if we want to use it to our advantage, we have to appreciate that there was a whole movement led by a great man, but he wasn't the movement himself. And today, Trump is not the administration. We call it the Trump administration but in fact, we're talking tens of thousands of people in Washington who are our government. And we're talking about tens of millions of people who support Trump. When we think about politics in the states, rather than thinking about this individual and the costs and benefits of this individual, we should think about what's really going on—the real political dynamics and that's one that involves tens of millions of people.

AMT: So it's not solely about understanding our knowledge. It's also taking responsibility for our role in feeding in our knowledge or our lack of knowledge into our community. We have individual responsibility to try to get things right.

STEVEN SLOMAN: That's a great point. Absolutely.

AMT: Thanks for coming in.

STEVEN SLOMAN: Oh, thanks so much for having me. This was a great pleasure.

AMT: Steven Sloman, professor of cognitive, linguistic and psychological sciences at Brown University. His new book was co-written with Philip Fernbach. It's called The Knowledge Illusion and Steven Sloman was in our Toronto studio. That's our program for today. Stay with Radio One for q. Tom Power speaks to John Waters whose 2015 commencement speech at the Rhode Island College of Design was shared and read widely. He told graduates to go out in the world and make trouble. And now he has a new book, Making Trouble. He'll be talking to Tom Power. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Thank you for listening to The Current.

[Music: Ending theme]

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

April 10, 2017 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode