In case you may have been vacationing on Mars these last few months and haven’t quite caught up on the news here at home, we’re in the midst of a pandemic and the United States of America is losing badly in its fight against a disease called COVID-19. Our White House squatter, Donald Trump, has botched the government’s response to the point that finding a way out of the mess we’re in seems depressingly out of reach.
Part of the problem is there’s so much conflicting information and disinformation being circulated, and Americans don’t seem to be doing a good job of sorting through the deluge of facts and opinions and deciding which ones to believe. And who can blame them? It’s hard to know, especially since we had never heard of COVID-19 until 2019, so we lack the advantage of prior experience as we strive to understand and respond in ways that will help keep us alive and healthy.
I’m not an infectious disease expert, but I do have some knowledge of critical thinking processes. For me, step one is establishing my basic premise, which is that my medical expertise is zero; therefore, any opinions I form or actions I take will have to be based on what I learn from people who have more expertise than I do, which in this case just means they know something. But since even experts often disagree, deciding which ones have greater credibility is a challenge and requires sharpening those critical thinking skills I mentioned.
Adding to the confusion, often experts disagree not only with other experts but also with their own previous positions. Many people, when they see that a recognized expert has changed a previously held position throw up their hands and exclaim “See, this is all a hoax!” They then dismiss everything the person has ever said and label him/her a fraud. But let’s think about that. Does a professional’s changing their mind diminish their credibility, or might it enhance our confidence in them? Many people would never admit to having changed their minds because they fear looking foolish, so they’ll double down on disproven ideas for the sake of saving face. One who admits having been influenced by newly discovered information should be applauded for having the honesty and courage to accept and act on new ideas.
In George Washington’s time, “medical theory of the day recommended that bleeding be administered in conjunction with emetics to produce vomiting and purges such as calomel (mercury). The idea was to debilitate the body to the point where the disease had nothing left on which to work” (encyclopedia.com). President Washington was bled, with his consent and at his request four times during the illness that preceded his death. Bleeding, or bloodletting, was sometimes done by leeches (yeah, the creepy-crawlies) and sometimes by making small incisions in the body. Joseph Kennedy–patriarch of the Kennedy clan that included a President, a Presidential candidate, and a long-serving Senator–ordered a lobotomy done on his then 23-year-old daughter Rosemary to “fix” the behavioral problems caused by her “mental retardation.” The results were not good, and Rosemary lived the last 63 years of her life in an institution.
Doctors today would face malpractice suits and have their licenses revoked for such treatments, but doctors in the 1700s and early 1900s were not committing malpractice; they were simply acting on the best research available to them.
Even in my own lifetime, much has changed. Castor oil and enemas were my mother’s go-to home remedies for pretty much whatever ailed us; I did not use those treatments on my children. When my children were babies, everything they touched was supposed to be sterilized: yep, in a pan of boiling water. By the time my grandchildren were born, washing things in hot water or running them through a dishwasher cycle was deemed sufficient. When I was a child, the treatment for a fever was to wrap up tight in flannel pjs and several blankets to “sweat it out.” When my children were feverish, I was instructed to remove clothing and blankets to allow excess body heat to escape.
Today’s medical science progresses by the day, not the year; therefore, theory and practice can change quickly, making it even more crucial that we learn to be discerning about whom and what we choose to believe.
Scientific research is a complex, time-consuming process for which most of us lack knowledge, skill, or patience. I think most of us would do well if we simply follow this checklist: (1) Who said it? (2) Who published the information and what is the date? (3) What are the person and the publisher’s biases? (4) What supporting evidence does the writer or speaker offer as the basis for their positions? And does that evidence pass the “smell” test?
That’s enough for my limited attention span, so let’s talk about those four questions.
First, who said it? Personal credibility is everything. What do you know about the writer or speaker? Do they have a reputation for honesty and integrity? Are they known for their expertise in the medical field? No one in the world is an expert on everything, though I’ve known a few who purport to be. Some people have a way of speaking that says “You have just heard the final word on this subject. There is no need to look further or check out my answer. I reside among the sages of the ages and I’m always right on every subject.” Remind you of anyone you know? I could name a few, but I won’t digress. The point is, some people can sway you to believe them simply by the confidence and authority with which they speak. Don’t be swayed. Look them up. See what else they believe or have done or what credentials they possess.
When a doctor stands on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court building, wearing her white coat and surrounded by her medical colleagues in their white coats, and makes this statement, it might seem to carry authority.
“This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need masks. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.”
Wow! In just nine short sentences, she has contradicted everything the experts have been telling us for months: We don’t need masks, there is a cure and its name is hydroxychloroquine, and we don’t need to practice social distancing. There’s a choice to make here. We can believe this doctor, because she is after all a doctor, and doctors don’t lie to us, right? She has the credentials, so I should assume she knows more than I do. But still, she’s going against Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC, and the WHO; so shouldn’t I at least check her out a little further?
Google, who is Dr. Stella Immanuel?
One of Google’s responses, from an article in The Daily Beast:
“Immanuel, a pediatrician and a religious minister, has a history of making bizarre claims about medical topics and other issues. She has often claimed that gynecological problems like cysts and endometriosis are in fact caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches.”
Oh. Well, in that case, I may as well call my neighbor of years ago who had a tradition of rewarding himself for surviving another work week by drinking himself into a stupor every Friday night. Though he did provide some neighborhood entertainment, no one would have gone to him for information, even when he was sober.
So now it’s Dr. Fauci vs. Dr. Immanuel. Dr. Fauci’s education, experience, and high honors could be an entire article on their own, so I’ll sum them up with this link: https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/director. Among other things, he has directed the National Institutes of Health and served under six presidents from both parties, and she believes medical conditions can be caused by dream sex with demons. I’ve made my choice: I’m with him. Yet the “president” praises her and goes on Tweet rants against him.
Choices are not always this clear cut, however, even for me. Maybe my local doctor is a skilled, ethical professional who tells me something which does not agree with mainstream positions. I’m still going to go with the guy who has the broader scope of experience and access to more relevant data and therefore the wider lens through which to view the situation. At the very least, I won’t discount what the higher-ranking expert says based on one bit of information even from another person I respect.
Next is the publisher and currency of the information. Just as individuals have reputations, so do publishers. It’s unfair to paint any group with a single brush stroke, including “the media.” Certain media outlets are known for adhering to journalistic ethics and standards, and some are not. Know which are which. Look up the publication if you’re not sure. Then look at the date on the material. If it was published in March of this year, it’s highly doubtful that it’s still relevant. We’ve lived ten years since March 2020. Whatever the date, keep looking to see whether you find newer information.
Third is the question of bias. And don’t say they don’t have any biases; we all have them, so having a bias is not always bad. I’m pretty biased toward my own children and grandchildren. My grandchildren are definitely cuter and smarter than yours. That bias is harmless enough, because you’d say the same thing to me. Media biases are a bit more problematic. When CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News present a story, we expect them to give different slants on the story determined by their corporate biases. Fox News is well known for supporting Donald Trump, whereas MSNBC is equally well known for disdaining him. CNN falls somewhere between the other two, though it’s moved far closer to MSNBC. It helps to know that. It also helps to bear those attitudes in mind when we hear stories from them about COVID-19. Fox News will echo Trump’s latest bluster: it’s a hoax, it will magically go away, or whatever. CNN and MSNBC will present the stories as they have researched the facts, though with a heavy dose of personal opinion from the anchors and guests.
Viewers must also beware of confirmation bias: the tendency to believe information because it agrees with our own biases and not believe information, regardless of how credible the source, because it forces us to question our previous ideas. Jean-Paul Sartre, 20th-century French philosopher and writer, in his 1957 book Existentialism and Human Emotion, defends the premise “Existence precedes essence,” by which he means each of us chooses our own existence and shapes our own reality strictly through the choices we make. Sartre doesn’t use the term “confirmation bias,” but he suggests it repeatedly by arguing that humans do not help themselves by seeking advice or direction from others because they will always interpret what they find to suit themselves. Confirmation bias indeed, and it applies to our choice of news and information sources as much as to anything else.
Fourth, we need to examine the evidence presented as proof of the writer or speaker’s claim. No matter how well credentialed a person is, their word is not enough. My mother’s favorite saying, “Because I said so,” is not a convincing scientific argument. Actually, it wasn’t very convincing for my mom either, but that’s a subject to take up with Oprah. Never accept any information based on the word of one person. If they can’t cite evidence, they aren’t worth listening to.
Always ask “Where did you get this? What is your source?” Any responsible person will willingly refer you to their sources. If they don’t have any, disregard whatever they say–even if they have a string of letters after their name or an impressive title. When Donald Trump speaks into a microphone “This will go away. It’s going to go away,” without offering any evidence of how it’s going to go away or what anyone is doing to make it go away, pay no attention to that person behind the mic–even though he’s the “president.” Or especially because he’s the “president.” The higher the office the greater the duty to speak responsibly. No one’s word stands alone as proof.
And since all evidence is not equally credible, it’s important to weigh the evidence presented. What is the source? Is it current? What is the bias? Is it politically motivated? Motive is key when examining evidence. When it becomes clear that information is being presented in an attempt to gain political advantage, that is a red flag. Even if the information is factual, the part that’s relevant to public health has to be looked at separately, apart from the political spin. When Donald Trump says over and over “It will go away,” it should be clear to anyone with normal intelligence that he’s working on getting himself re-elected, not on protecting your health and mine.
Rarely is one piece of evidence a sufficient basis for an important decision. The legal terms “preponderance of evidence” and “beyond reasonable doubt” suggest that evidence needs to be weighty enough to persuade reasonable people that a wrong has been done, and typically, Exhibit A all by itself is not enough to do that.
This week, I was out exploring walking paths around my new home and came to a place where I saw a possible route that was on the other side of the road from where I was standing. Trying to decide whether I should cross over, I looked around and observed there were no vehicles in sight. Based on that bit of evidence alone, it should have been perfectly safe to cross the road. It was a fact, not fake news, confirmed by my own observation–a primary source. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, there were a few other pertinent facts: (1) I was close to a sharp curve in the road, so I couldn’t see more than maybe 20 feet beyond where I was standing; (2) it’s a main road, heavily traveled; (3) I’d estimate the average speed of the vehicles I see go past me is maybe 50-70 miles per hour; (4) I do not move at 50-70 miles per hour; (5) therefore, because of the speed difference and the limited visibility, by the time I could see a vehicle coming toward me, it’s highly unlikely I could get out of its path; (6) because of the limited visibility, by the time a driver could see me, it would be difficult to avoid hitting me. The preponderance (weight) of evidence was not sufficient to remove reasonable doubt that crossing the road at that particular place was safe, in spite of the initial fact that I saw no cars coming.
Americans are an independent lot; our rugged individualism, though prized by many, is actually one of the main obstacles right now to our conquering this crisis. Lots of people are fond of saying “I’m entitled to my own opinion.” I would say yes and no to that. Yes, I am entitled to think for myself, but no I am not entitled to follow my own inclinations when my actions may negatively impact others. Citizens of more collectivist societies understand that principle, and those are the countries which currently have COVID under control, while we’re in the midst of a raging forest fire.
An opinion is not just whatever thought pops into my head or what I read in an Internet meme or some isolated article from a marginal “news” outlet or what I feel in a given moment. An opinion is a carefully considered interpretation of facts. Two or more people may look at the same facts and reach different conclusions, but opinions to be valid must begin with facts (not just one fact), not feeling and not hearsay.
We’re in dangerous times. What you and I do today will determine whether some people will live to see tomorrow and will shape the lives of those who do survive this crisis for years to come. Making a few sacrifices now seems a small price to pay for a healthier future. I saw a clever meme today on social media: a picture of two dogs with talk bubbles over their heads. One dog asks “Why are humans wearing muzzles?” The other dog replies “Because they couldn’t sit and stay.” Surely we can be better than this.
Don’t believe everything you hear and wear the damn mask.