My True North: Finding what's real in a world of distraction
In a world with for-profit media, satirical news, pseudoscience, and all sorts of unsubstantiated claims, it's hard to know what we can trust.
One of my favorite passages about this comes from astrophysicist Carl Sagan, in his book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." This book is a must read for anyone who cares about science, society, and truth.
The story goes like this:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Are vaccines safe or do they contain dangerous ingredients?
Can we trust the news slant we hear on TV news?
Do crystals and essential oils really help cure what seems to elude modern medicine?
With so many distractions, many of which touch on subjects close to the heart, how can we shield ourselves from pseudoscience and misdirection? As rational, caring people, we want to believe in things that sound protective or helpful.
When we or someone we care about is hurting, we want to believe the eucalyptus oil will help ease their pain. When there are complicated and important problems facing our society, of which we don't have a simple answer for, we want to jump behind the angry political commentator who claims to have the solution. When we don't understand something, it's only natural to feel comforted when a digestible explanation comes along. These misdirections may sound benign, but they cause real harm to us and our world. However, that's a subject for another article.
A doctor can explain why vaccines work and why the ingredients are safe. A trained, independent journalist can tell you which news sources to trust. A scientist can explain why oils and rocks can't perform magic. But in the absence of experts, we're left on our own to discern what to trust.
In a world so saturated with information, both real and make believe, we need ways to figure out what is right and wrong. We need a compass to point us in the right direction.
Using my experience as a trained print journalist and physicist, I've come up with some helpful criteria to keep from falling for false news, particularly with regards to online and broadcast media (TV and radio).
Does the headline contain feeling, opinion, or accusing words like: gross, perv, rapist, racist, lazy, etc.? These things may be true, but trained journalists don't use these words, they let you read the facts and decide on your own. If you see words like these, run away! This is NOT news, for sure.
Does the news anchor/commentator/radio host's voice sound emotional? If you can hear anger, excitement, judgement, sadness, outrage, or other strong emotions in the voice of the person delivering the information, chances are strong that it isn't news, it's entertainment or opinion. I recommend only investing in independent news, so that the opinions you draw are your own, and are based on evidence.
Does the headline contain amazing numbers or outrageous claims? This is not always a sign of a fake story, but likely, if the headline is not restated in the story with a cited source for the information, it's a good time to call bullshit.
Are there grammar errors, spelling mistakes, or more than one typo? Real journalism calls for a particular, rigorous style and grammar, as well as multiple rounds of fact checking and editing before publication. If you can't get it right you can't be a journalist.
Are there sources and citations for any and all claims of fact? Journalists live by an ethical code of citing source material in-text. If you don't see an explanation in the story about who said what or what study figures came from, call bullshit, and quick.
Does the article use terms like "Mrs.", "Mr.", "Miss", or avoid the use of professional titles altogether? Journalists are required to introduce experts using their official, relevant titles. Using a gendered prefix in front of a name is NOT journalistic style (called Associated Press style), and in almost all cases, will not be used by credible journalism sources. Examples of AP style introductions would include: "Alice Brown, science professor at M.I.T., says..." or "President Jamie Anderson arrived in Atlanta on...". Examples of what incorrect introductions might look like: "Mrs. Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton..." or "Mr. Bush didn't show up for...".
If there are exclamation points, anywhere in a story, it is probably NOT news. Journalists only use exclamation points in dire circumstances. If Jesus were to come back, a journalist may use an exclamation point in the following way, "Jesus returned!" Otherwise, watch out for these pesky punctuation marks. Most journalists would die before using them in real stories. And especially if you see an exclamation point in a headline, or multiple within a story, it's likely not credible.
Carl Sagan believed strongly in empowering everyone with the tools to navigate our information-rich world, using both curiosity and skepticism. In his book, Sagan developed what he called a Baloney Detection Kit, which applies to more than just news and media.
"What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and-especially important-to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true."
Sagan made a list, a starting point, for skeptical thinking when assessing new facts that are presented to us. The following is my own summary of his list, which can be read in detail here.
"Because science carries us toward an understanding of how the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be, its findings may not in all cases be immediately comprehensible or satisfying. It may take a little work to restructure our mindsets." (Sagan)
But in the end, by consistently checking that our compasses are pointed toward true north, toward facts and reality, we will get ever closer to the truth. And with truth, comes the power to change, to plan, and to positively manipulate our future into what we want it to be. Whether that's deciding to get the vaccine after all and join in society's effort to eradicate deadly diseases, or deciding to put down the essential oils and instead offer your ailing friend empathy, comfort, and a ride to the doctor, every time we turn toward truth, we add a little more good to the world. Every time our compass flutters, we need to make sure we know which way points true north.
One of my favorite passages about this comes from astrophysicist Carl Sagan, in his book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." This book is a must read for anyone who cares about science, society, and truth.
The story goes like this:
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage."
Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."
And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.
Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
Are vaccines safe or do they contain dangerous ingredients?
Can we trust the news slant we hear on TV news?
Do crystals and essential oils really help cure what seems to elude modern medicine?
With so many distractions, many of which touch on subjects close to the heart, how can we shield ourselves from pseudoscience and misdirection? As rational, caring people, we want to believe in things that sound protective or helpful.
When we or someone we care about is hurting, we want to believe the eucalyptus oil will help ease their pain. When there are complicated and important problems facing our society, of which we don't have a simple answer for, we want to jump behind the angry political commentator who claims to have the solution. When we don't understand something, it's only natural to feel comforted when a digestible explanation comes along. These misdirections may sound benign, but they cause real harm to us and our world. However, that's a subject for another article.
A doctor can explain why vaccines work and why the ingredients are safe. A trained, independent journalist can tell you which news sources to trust. A scientist can explain why oils and rocks can't perform magic. But in the absence of experts, we're left on our own to discern what to trust.
In a world so saturated with information, both real and make believe, we need ways to figure out what is right and wrong. We need a compass to point us in the right direction.
Using my experience as a trained print journalist and physicist, I've come up with some helpful criteria to keep from falling for false news, particularly with regards to online and broadcast media (TV and radio).
Does the headline contain feeling, opinion, or accusing words like: gross, perv, rapist, racist, lazy, etc.? These things may be true, but trained journalists don't use these words, they let you read the facts and decide on your own. If you see words like these, run away! This is NOT news, for sure.
Does the news anchor/commentator/radio host's voice sound emotional? If you can hear anger, excitement, judgement, sadness, outrage, or other strong emotions in the voice of the person delivering the information, chances are strong that it isn't news, it's entertainment or opinion. I recommend only investing in independent news, so that the opinions you draw are your own, and are based on evidence.
Does the headline contain amazing numbers or outrageous claims? This is not always a sign of a fake story, but likely, if the headline is not restated in the story with a cited source for the information, it's a good time to call bullshit.
Are there grammar errors, spelling mistakes, or more than one typo? Real journalism calls for a particular, rigorous style and grammar, as well as multiple rounds of fact checking and editing before publication. If you can't get it right you can't be a journalist.
Are there sources and citations for any and all claims of fact? Journalists live by an ethical code of citing source material in-text. If you don't see an explanation in the story about who said what or what study figures came from, call bullshit, and quick.
Does the article use terms like "Mrs.", "Mr.", "Miss", or avoid the use of professional titles altogether? Journalists are required to introduce experts using their official, relevant titles. Using a gendered prefix in front of a name is NOT journalistic style (called Associated Press style), and in almost all cases, will not be used by credible journalism sources. Examples of AP style introductions would include: "Alice Brown, science professor at M.I.T., says..." or "President Jamie Anderson arrived in Atlanta on...". Examples of what incorrect introductions might look like: "Mrs. Hillary Clinton, wife of Bill Clinton..." or "Mr. Bush didn't show up for...".
If there are exclamation points, anywhere in a story, it is probably NOT news. Journalists only use exclamation points in dire circumstances. If Jesus were to come back, a journalist may use an exclamation point in the following way, "Jesus returned!" Otherwise, watch out for these pesky punctuation marks. Most journalists would die before using them in real stories. And especially if you see an exclamation point in a headline, or multiple within a story, it's likely not credible.
Carl Sagan believed strongly in empowering everyone with the tools to navigate our information-rich world, using both curiosity and skepticism. In his book, Sagan developed what he called a Baloney Detection Kit, which applies to more than just news and media.
"What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and-especially important-to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true."
Sagan made a list, a starting point, for skeptical thinking when assessing new facts that are presented to us. The following is my own summary of his list, which can be read in detail here.
- Get independent confirmation of facts, whenever possible.
- Evidence-based debates should involve experts on all points of view.
- "In science, there are no authorities; at most, there are experts." (Sagan) Because authorities have and will continue to make mistakes, arguments from authority should carry little to no weight.
- Rather than focusing on just one explanation to something, consider several hypotheses and try to systematically disprove each potential explanation. Whichever explanation(s) remain are more likely to be correct.
- Don't get emotionally attached to one hypothesis over the others, especially if it's your hypothesis. This is the easiest way to fail the pursuit of knowledge. We should always be ready to be wrong, and grateful when we've ruled out a false explanation, even when it was once our favorite explanation.
- If numerical evidence can be used in finding an explanation, it should be. Numerical data is more reliable than qualitative (non-numerical) arguments, and should be used wherever possible.
- If an argument relies on a chain of claims, each claim must be proven, not just some of them.
- When there are multiple possible solutions, the simplest explanation is most likely correct. Also known as Occam's Razor, "The simplest solution is most likely the right one."
- Can the solution be tested? Is there a way to try and prove it false? If not, it's not a worthwhile argument. "Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable, are not worth much." (Sagan) Think back to the claim of an invisible dragon in the garage.
"Because science carries us toward an understanding of how the world is, rather than how we would wish it to be, its findings may not in all cases be immediately comprehensible or satisfying. It may take a little work to restructure our mindsets." (Sagan)
But in the end, by consistently checking that our compasses are pointed toward true north, toward facts and reality, we will get ever closer to the truth. And with truth, comes the power to change, to plan, and to positively manipulate our future into what we want it to be. Whether that's deciding to get the vaccine after all and join in society's effort to eradicate deadly diseases, or deciding to put down the essential oils and instead offer your ailing friend empathy, comfort, and a ride to the doctor, every time we turn toward truth, we add a little more good to the world. Every time our compass flutters, we need to make sure we know which way points true north.