by the Opaque Senator
How many times have you heard the following phrases over the last 4 years?
-Get the facts!
-Do some research and then you’ll see!
-Don’t be a sheeple!
-You need to educate yourself.
What do all of these phrases have in common? “I know…and you don’t!” I have heard every measure of these phrases and more so much lately. It doesn’t matter whether someone’s views are left, right, or center, you’ve probably either said these things or been told them by someone you know (and a lot more you don’t know) if you’ve any passion for anything going on in the country and world right now. This entire mindset defeats the very thing most people seem to think they are doing, and that is framing or “winning” a debate.
I find these statements, as well as this mindset, extremely frustrating. For reference, my background and education is in political science and psychology. I have a Master of Arts in Public Policy, focusing on policy analysis and administration. Politics and public policy is something I enjoy and am passionate about. But I also really enjoy the spirit of good debate. And don’t get me wrong, there IS good debate to be had out there! I’ve made friends with people who believe differently than I precisely because we came to an understanding. Anyone who knows me knows that I welcome others who disagree to state their case and lay out their argument. I try very hard, especially through my social media accounts where we can interact with so many people across the globe, to foster spirited and good debate.
When I look around, even at the posts of friends who I admire and care about, I see a real challenge with fostering these discussions. I read and see the aforementioned statements in bulk; even from people and ideologies I agree wholeheartedly with. Why are these statements problematic? Simple: many of the people making said statements have done little, some, or a ton of research in the same vain that the person they are arguing with has done little, some, or a ton of research…from sources they trust.
This is problem number 1 right now. Sourcing, and understanding what constitutes objectively “good” and “bad” sourcing to back up a statement or opinion. Actually, that right there is problem number 2, understanding what a “fact” is, and what an “opinion” is. I want to hit on a couple of these topics, because even if 1 person reads this and takes it to heart, it may help foster good debate elsewhere.
So, what is a fact? What is an opinion? Some facts are easy to understand. Fact 1: The circumference of the Earth is about 24,901 miles (when measured from the equator). How do I know this? Well, I Googled it of course (haha)! But how do I know this is a fact and not an opinion? We can measure it using mathematical knowledge. Teach people how to properly calculate circumference (2 x pi x r(radius)), and 10 out of 10 times they will come up with the same answer.
Fact 2: Masks limit the amount of particles coming out of your mouth and can protect others from catching an illness or sickness that you have. Topical at the time of this writing, right? Again, how do I know this? I can cite numerous studies on the fact. Here are two…
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/65/11/1934/4068747
https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/8/567.short
I found these two pretty quickly. One thing most non-researchers don’t know is a good place to look for good studies related to a topic is Google Scholar. It’s an amazing starting point. Check it for yourself. Type into regular Google “effectiveness of masks” and then type that same exact thing into google.com/scholar, and see the differences in what you will find. These are well sourced pieces of information. Depending on the topic, medical journals, university sites, places like these are great sources of information.
Another really important way to gauge sourcing: who did that source cite itself? Almost all research it built upon the backs of past research, so when reading a study or article about a study (important distinction as articles about studies may also be posted to simply get views with clickbait headlines, not cite other relevant literature, or tout a wrong conclusion from the research) ask yourself; where did the information that this author(s) baseline information come from. How are they drawing their conclusions? Are the sources they cite reliable? How MANY sources did they cite?
Throughout both my major’s degree paths, I took several courses on research methods. The phrase “do your research” typically makes me cringe when I hear it, because neither side in the debate I will read have actually done good research. Believe me, you can’t get away with writing a thesis or dissertation without understanding how to do research correctly. It’s not typically quick (unless you’ve done it and bookmarked good sources for a repeat debate) and that is where the problem typically arises from: laziness. For all the good that social media can do in connecting people, I see a lot of lazy “research” when it comes to debates about important topics. So what DOES happen when people are linking stuff in many of these comment sections? Well…memes mainly. Or YouTube videos. Well-known biased websites. I think we’ve all seen the examples.
The thing is, the algorithms that dominate the internet and our search habits today are designed to become echo chambers for our thoughts. These days, you can find something to “back up” almost any thought process imaginable. There are literally groups out there dedicated to a multitude of conspiracy theories about every subject from politics, to science, to religion, and beyond. There’s the obvious stuff of course (flat-Earth anyone?) but then there are far less obvious ones, even to people who are good researchers (COVID 19 has presented some crazy things due to us being still pretty early in it’s discovery period).
Another popular one online is “well, X person I know is a doctor, and THEY TOLD ME I didn’t have to worry about Y.” Sure, I’ll bet X person is a doctor (or you could be lying, but that’s another topic, and really irrelevant to the point). I’d like to see what research X person has done on this topic, and I’d invite them on here to talk too about why they think Y, but this entire body of information with 100s of studies says otherwise. Sorry, but unless X person has a good reason to discount Y besides “their (subjective) experience” it is not helpful or relevant to what is being said here. Peer reviewed research and studies is how we cut through what our biased experiences are showing us. “Oh, well I ALSO know a doctor and they said the opposite of YOUR doctor friend!” Now where are we? Right back to where we started. Peer reviewed research and consistency is needed. This holds true too of the random YouTube video of X doctor/person of note explaining something to the public. Why is this not legitimate? Again, it’s going against the body of work. Why are they on YouTube with this? What is their history?
All of this is a long way to get through to define the definition of “facts” for people. On something visually finite, like the circumference of the Earth, or measuring the volume of an object, it’s pretty hard to deny the facts. But what about topics much more subjective? Difficult topics to discuss like systemic racism? Tax policy? Well, now we’re getting into opinion territory. By ideology, I am largely progressive-left in my political leanings. I can make a statement like “I believe a much more progressive tax policy is the best way for our country to move forward.” This, is my opinion. Why? There are loads of real life examples and research and theories looking at how best to tax a population, and over 200 countries that do things differently, and even people defining what that even is. It’s also too big to fit into the land of “fact.” Now, what about this? “If we raised taxes on the top 1% of the tax bracket by 3%, we could raise the $131 billion we need to fund X infrastructure project.” Ah, this can be a fact, depending on the variables at the time it was made. Then let’s add; “We need an infrastructure project as the top priority in the US.” Well, now we are back to opinion. The point is, it gets complicated. But this is precisely why good research and understanding of how to come up with solid information matters so much. These are the types of conversations we as Americans SHOULD be having. What should be our priorities as a country? Let’s debate it all and come up with the best ideas!
This is what legitimate debate is all about. Obviously, I used a combination of varying facts and opinions to draw my conclusion about this topic. Using the facts we learn and find to support our varying opinion about our direction, priorities, policies, even our interests and efforts. Sharing a meme with un-sourced or poorly sourced information on its own is not helpful. Saying “do your research” when said person likely thinks they’ve done that without actually even having a chance to see what the person talking down to them is talking about? Also, not helpful.
I’d like to take this one step further with a real example when it comes to sourcing and how I analyze the facts and opinions presented, as well as how to gauge the relevancy of a source. I’ve watched several hearings of Dr. Rand Paul, a senator from Kentucky, chastising Dr. Anthony Fauci, the head of the CDC here in the US, about his decisions and expertise. Often, I hear “well, why isn’t HIS statements being taken as seriously as Dr. Fauci? He’s a doctor too!” True, he is an ophthalmologist prior to his career in politics. But, he also CURRENTLY HAS a career in politics and built his brand that he sells to people on a particular viewpoint. Take a listen to this exchange between the two men here:
My opinion: Rand’s type of voice is one that is very dangerous to these types of discussions. Paul is discredited compared to Fauci for a few reasons. One, again, oftentimes his statements run contrary to the body of research. Two, Paul’s main goal is to stay in power as a politician, and his particular brand of politics is that of decentralized government and libertarianism. The US has the highest case load and death rate of COVID 19 (see the CDC or even a regular Google search will show you the numbers), and of the major countries fighting this virus, we have one of the most decentralized government systems in the world (ie, our state and local governments were given the greatest amount of power in how they addressed the threat of COVID 19 compared to the federal government, where in most of the EU and the Eastern nations, federal roles were expanded). His brand is damaged by the actual facts of what is happening in reality. His main two points are about schools and what he refers to as “central planning,” and he talks about so many other countries (with more centralized systems mind you) have begun reopening schools. He then cites a number of studies, statistics, and evidence about child-to-adult transmission of COVID 19. Then he hits his point about decentralized governance. Then he talks about “why are a couple of people making decisions about what we don’t know” but then chastises why something was removed from the WHO that would muddle people’s decisions about what the correct decisions would be. Fauci, without the time to hit every point, addresses him well. But most importantly, what he does that Paul doesn’t, he says “all I can do is give you the facts (about what I know) to the best of my ability.”
This is a great sign of the difference and why one man’s positions are more warranted than the other. Did you catch it? All of Paul’s points end up trying to back up a particular position relative to governance, and he’s using facts in other countries about schools (where the virus has been contained with strong centralized governments, compared to the decentralized US where it has not been contained), as why we need to make a particular push towards a position. He also is someone who values individual liberty above all, and “wants people to make the best decision for themselves.” In the US, this is basically what’s happened more than in most other countries. And, as the statistics on COVID at the time of writing this show, people make pretty poor decisions when they are not armed with the ability to research well, and when they are left to their own devices when it comes to experiencing a global pandemic for the first time. When broken down, all of Dr. Paul’s points and research and given in service of an ideology. Dr. Fauci’s job to is know diseases and pandemics, and advise based on what he knows. He’s been doing so, for different political-leaning administrations, since the 1980s. This is why Fauci as a source, is more credible. Does that mean Dr. Fauci is always right, and Dr. Paul is always wrong? Of course not. Everyone makes mistakes. And that is true of all research. We do sometimes draw the wrong conclusions based on the facts, or realize later that the results of studies and experiments we’ve done were inhibited or altered by factors we did not know about or account for. So the facts in question, end up being in service to an altered question when we learn new evidence.
Basically, life is complicated. But even though someone like Fauci or anyone with expertise will get it wrong every now and then, I will trust his word on this topic over Paul, and roll with whatever consequences there are to that thought process. Sourcing is very important. Paul actually found great studies and sources to back up his points; they are all legitimate when you look for them, and they do in the bubble presented show certain relative ideas to discuss. But there is important context missing from them, and I know to look for this as a researcher because of who the source is and what he’s trying to accomplish at the end of the day.
So let’s have important debates. We are more capable now than ever, with unlimited information at our fingertips, to have them and to learn. But that the last, and most important part about debate; we need to LEARN and be willing to LEARN and grow from having them. Not simply pontificate because we want validation. There have been many times I’ve engaged in legitimate debate with people about all kinds of subjects and I’ve at least slightly altered or outright changed my mind about something. And that’s okay! That is the only way to learn and grow. If you, as an individual, are coming from a position where you are not willing to adapt a viewpoint despite the evidence, it is time to seriously consider why your position is so important to you, and self discover. Does the opposite reality make you uncomfortable? Challenge a bedrock principle of yours? Force you to a place where you no longer have all the knowledge you thought you had? Then, adapt and move on. Believe me, there will be subjects you’ll have information when you’ve researched enough that others don’t.
Let’s improve the tambre and level of our conversations. Let’s all learn and grow together.
I am the Opaque Senator, and in this increasingly opaque world, I hope things are a little more clear…
Eww, Politics 