Science is arguably one of the greatest human constructs ever imagined. The scientific method allows for the identification of objective truth from naturally subjective animals. It aims to find truth regardless of human opinion or belief. It is self-correcting. Scientific results are reproducible and observational, everyone can see and attain the same results. Information obtained through science is shared, confirmed, and corrected by others. New information can change established understanding.
Science is based on evidence. Evidence is the data that support or refute a claim.
When we use scientific thinking to understand the world, we can mitigate partisan and tribal thinking. All ideas are worth considering, regardless of group affiliation, because data does not have an agenda.
Humans, however, DO have an agenda. Any information can be misused if the audience is willing. When the audience cannot discern the facts for themselves, they can be mislead. But when the audience is informed, they can call bullshit. When the audience has the tools of science, of critical thinking, we can call bullshit.
We’re not ready for this.
The information age has transformed society, and we are not ready for this. There is no precedent in human existence for the explosion and saturation of information, and the constant decision-making that is the result. Within a couple of decades, regular Americans went from engaging with current events through a morning newspaper or an evening T.V. news program, to being bombarded with news and information 24 hours a day. And the world has only become more globalized and more complex during that time.
Not only are we being exposed to more information than ever, the kind of information we’re sifting through is often complicated, complex, specialized, and requires expert historical and policy knowledge that pretty much none of us possess. Our beautiful capable brains are not evolved to manage this information overload, which is why we have neurological shortcuts (see Why Are We the Way We Are?) like tribalism. We must accept that we are tribal, partisan, and biased, and then actively work against those instincts.
We must accept that we are tribal, partisan, and biased, and then actively work against those instincts.
Fine, I’m partisan. Now what?
Making reasoned sense of all this information requires every person to be knowledgeable and discerning, but most people are not knowledgeable and discerning. Therefore, we have to resort to trusting our representatives to be knowledgeable and discerning, but they are often not any better at it than we are. Especially because our elected officials must balance the same information overload we have as citizens with the competing interest of keeping their jobs.
Changing the way we deal with all of this information starts with one step, one move, one person, one idea. If we as individuals start with ourselves, and commit to finding objectivity in our own interactions with society, we can elect representatives that do the same. We can reset the expectations we place on our elected officials. WE can fix this.
What is your evidence?
I want to be clear here. I’m not asking you or me or anyone else to leave our opinions or feelings behind. We are human, and we have our own way of seeing the world through our own unique lens of personal experience, cultural expectations, and spiritual beliefs. It is this unique personal view that makes you perfectly qualified to participate in representative government. You live here, you pay taxes, you are unique, and you should expect your representative government to support and protect YOUR life.
But how can we make sense of so much information? How do we make these informed decisions, how do we hold our elected officials to the highest standards of conduct and integrity, how do we make sure they are collecting and utilizing information to best represent the interests of We, the People?
Thinking scientifically takes a little practice, but it’s something we can all do and it starts with one question: What is your evidence?
We can use the tools of science to help us understand and parse the vast amounts of information we encounter; the information that we use to choose our representative government. And it’s going to take some practice. It might even be a little uncomfortable. We must ask ourselves and our elected leaders: What is your evidence for that?
Okay, so how do we do it?
- Ignore the group associations of the person making the claim. We simply cannot discount information just because it comes from an opposing party. WE CANNOT DISMISS INFORMATION SOLELY BECAUSE “THEY” SAID IT. (See Us vs Them)
- Demand evidence. Ask yourself and the claimant, “What is your evidence for that?”
- Evaluate the evidence. How reliable is the evidence? Is it an opinion? Where did it come from? Is it a reproducible scientific study? Do absolute experts in that field support it? Has it been tried before? What were the results when it was tried before? Does the evidence actually prove anything, or does it change the question?
- Consensus. What other reputable organizations, experts, researchers are making the same claim? Do they have the same reasons? Did they independently come to this conclusion or are they repeating from the original claimant? Do other reputable organizations, experts, etc, refute the claim? If so, why? And what is their evidence?
- Accept. Sometimes you’ll get the joy of being proven right. Sometimes you’ll get the despair of being dead wrong. Sometimes what we want to be true, just isn’t true. But that’s okay! It’s okay to be wrong, because now you’ve learned something, and you are better informed, and therefore better prepared for the next new information.
When we’ve made the best possible attempt to gather objective data, when we’ve evaluated the veracity of that data, when we’ve followed the evidence to it’s logical conclusion, then we have to accept the results.
Nothing is 100%
When new information presents itself, we have to be willing to draw new conclusions. This may be one of the most ingenious features of scientific thinking, and science in general. The reason science is self-correcting is because when new information is acquired, old conclusions must be reevaluated in light of the new data, and sometimes this changes the conclusions. One of my favorite websites, Understanding Science, clearly highlights how this is done:
Scientific ideas are tested with multiple lines of evidence.
Science is a community endeavor that benefits from a diverse and broad range of perspectives, practices, and technologies.
Scientific ideas evolve with new evidence; however, well supported scientific ideas are not tenuous.
Through a system of checks and balances, the process of science can overcome individual biases.
Evidence is the most important arbiter of which scientific ideas are accepted.
From:
” Cells within cells: An extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence .” Understanding Science. University of California Museum of Paleontology. 6 December 2019 <http://www.understandingscience.org/article/alvarez_01>.
Using multiple lines of evidence to consider a wide range of perspectives, evolving the idea with new evidence, and using checks and balances to overcome biases should not be a standard just for “science” topics. These premises are applicable to any line of thinking in any subject area where observable facts can be attained.
Using Scientific Thinking to Mitigate Partisanship
When We, the People, use scientific thinking to evaluate information in the social political realm, we make ourselves able to discern truth and avoid partisanship. We are still going to be conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican – our ideology is part of our biology – but we will identify information that allows us to make decisions based on evidence, not partisan affiliation.
