How to see the truth in a sea of misinformation: 12 tips from John Grant

2024 Author: Malcolm Clapton | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 03:44

The danger of global warming, the theory of evolution, the failure of astrology - these questions are the subjects of fierce debate, in which the arguments of each side can seem convincing. Writer John Grant in I Don't Believe! How to see the truth in a sea of misinformation”tells how to separate the truth from lies and delusions.

1. Ignore irrelevant details

Confusion is a favorite technique for speakers with shaky arguments. So, answering a question posed by an opponent, they can pour out tons of information that is not in essence, creating the illusion that they have defended their point of view.

This technique can be especially clearly demonstrated by the example of political press conferences, involving the communication of the figure with the audience.

2. Consider how authoritative the cited sources really are

Example: Conflict between Republican Representative John Huntsman and public figure Rush Limbaugh in 2011. Huntsman tweeted a post in which he admitted that he believes in the theory of global warming, which has been rejected by Republicans for so long. Conservative Rush Limbaugh called Huntsman's words nonsense, and the theory itself a hoax and fake.

Are Huntsman and Limbaugh the authorities? Undoubtedly. Is each of them right? Of course not. Remember that the credibility of a source is determined only by its competence in the issue under discussion. Popularity, merit and respect in any area do not make a person an expert in all areas.

3. Check the context of the quoted quotes

Example: Putting a specific part of a quote from a reputable film critic on a DVD cover. The caption reads: "A delight that simply cannot be expressed in words." Original quote: “With such stars and such a budget, you expect to experience a delight that simply cannot be expressed in words. What a pity that the end result turned out to be nowhere more horrible …"

This example, of course, is a little far-fetched, but very illustrative. Sometimes the use of selective citation is much less obvious and therefore more dangerous. For example, creationists like to quote Darwin's words about the absurdity of the assumption that the most complex structure of the human eye could have appeared in an evolutionary way. However, anti-Darwinists forget to point out that this is only the beginning of a reasoning, at the end of which this assumption does not seem absurd to the author.

4. Make sure no personalization has been applied

Example: the conflict that occurred in 2009 between Christopher Monckton, a denier of the theory of climate change, and John Abraham, professor at St. Thomas University. Monckton read a report on the inconsistency of the theory of global warming, backing it up with seemingly impressive arguments.

Abraham prepared a whole scientific work aimed at refuting the Monckton report, and, assuring the support of many respected scientists, smashed Monckton's antiscientific treatise to smithereens. The charlatan's answer was not long in coming. So, he said that Abraham's attacks are "poisonous and childish", that his voice is "annoyingly friendly", and his face looks like "overcooked shrimp".

You don't need to be a scientist to understand that Monckton's personalization (a trick called the "straw scarecrow") indicates the inconsistency of his position and the inability to defend it in an honest scientific discussion.

5. Look for original sources of information

Do not be content with reprints of articles adapted for the average user, and information from Wikipedia. If you want to get to the bottom of the truth, do not be lazy to find primary sources, and then check the authority of the scientific publications that published this information.

Example: The headline "Exoplanets Where We Will Fly To Visit Our Grandchildren," precedes an article on recently discovered exoplanets. The title does not tell the reader that the possibility of life on these planets is only a hypothesis, and the celestial bodies themselves are 40 light years away. Based on the title, the objectivity of this adaptation is highly questionable.

6. Beware of labeling and stereotyping

Example: Nazi propaganda during World War II. The Nazis convinced the German people that representatives of certain groups of the population (for example, Slavs or Jews) are not full-fledged people and must be destroyed.

Labeling is a common practice in modern public battles as well. Thus, liberals seek to equate conservatives with fascists, and the American opposition often ranked Obama among socialists, Marxists, fascists, Islamists and atheists. Not only was this categorization irrelevant to reality, but the labels themselves clearly contradicted each other. If one of the participants seeks to stigmatize the opponent, then the likelihood of the failure of his arguments is quite high.

7. Remember: many special cases are not yet proof

Example: evidence of unidentified flying objects. Indeed, thousands of people have seen UFOs, but this does not mean that aliens periodically visit the Earth.

Professional liars rely on the fact that most of us reason this way: if a lot of people report an event, it must be true.

Of course, there is always the possibility that such stories have a foundation worthy of further study. But at the same time, it is necessary to conduct a real scientific study of individual stories, and not perceive them all in aggregate.

8. Be vigilant if someone is constantly changing the rules of the game in an attempt to convince you

Example: Creationist demands for evidence of evolutionary intermediates. Let's say there are two types: A and B. Opponents of the theory of evolution urge Darwinists to give them an argument: to find an intermediate link between these two species. Let's say archaeologists have found evidence of some transitional stage - species C. In response, creationists keep making claims: where are the transitional forms between fossils A and C? And between C and B?

This example clearly demonstrates why the author gave this trick the name "gate bar offset". He also reproaches opponents of the theory of global warming for such a trick, who argue their position by the fact that severe snowstorms still occur in winter.

9. Watch out for false balances in the news

The point of balance between truth and falsehood is … still the same lie.

Example: TV debates about supernatural phenomena or, for example, conspiracy theories. The fact is that in any, even the most obvious question, there is one who disagrees.

Have the Americans been to the moon? Someone would argue. Is the earth round? It is absurd, but someone will not agree with this either.

The media often use this technique in order to show two points of view and give the viewer the freedom to choose between them. Thus, the media themselves remain neutral. It doesn't matter that one of the participants in the debate may be an outright liar.

10. Do not believe the first explanation just because you are unable to explain something yourself

Example: one of the arguments related to the lack of one's own intellectual development was given by American journalist Bill O'Reilly in an interview with David Silverman in 2011. Not knowing that the ebb and flow are explained by the force of the moon's gravity, he attributed their nature to divine providence. This is a wonderful example of how a person is leaning towards his preferred point of view due to his own ignorance.

11. If all the evidence you have collected supports your beliefs, make sure you are objective

While passionately seeking to defend their point of view, people often neglect some arguments in favor of others, which is the most common cause of various misconceptions.

Our main enemy in search of the truth is not a propagandist or a politician. The main enemy is ourselves.

Using a rational approach to the search for truth, a person inevitably condemns himself to the fact that he will have to change or correct his opinion on certain issues.

12. Use the scientific method whenever possible

The foundations of the hypothetical-deductive method were developed about two centuries ago. This method includes four stages: collecting evidence, formulating a hypothesis, creating predictions, and testing predictions experimentally.

Example: proving the Earth's rotation using the scientific method. First, we collect evidence: the picture of the night sky is changing, there is a certain movement of the Earth relative to the stars. We offer a hypothesis: the Earth rotates on its axis. We make predictions: if the Earth is really subject to rotation, then fluids should swirl when flowing into relatively narrow holes. We conduct an experiment: we observe the discharge of water into the sink. The experiment confirmed that the hypothesis is correct: the Earth does rotate.

These tips are just a small part of what can be learned from the book by John Grant “I Don't Believe! How to see the truth in a sea of misinformation”. The author not only describes the mechanisms of deception and the spread of delusions, but also gives specific examples of how such information harmed people. John Grant touches on, perhaps, all the popular subjects of controversy in recent years: the theory of evolution, global warming, the obligation to vaccinate against diseases, astrology. If you want to cultivate healthy skepticism and critical thinking, then we advise you not to postpone reading this book.