How to Know

We need to fight back on the idea that there's nothing we can really know. 

When I taught, more and more I'd run up against the claim that there's nothing we can know in the world. I believe that it's a dangerous situation if we think science is on par with random assertions making the rounds on the internet as if there's nothing we can do but shrug. 

Here's Rachel Maddow explaining that concern in one minute 

@msnbc

Rachel Maddow joined Chris Hayes for a live taping of his podcast "Why Is This Happening?", to talk about how authoritarianism has succeeded in the past and how the same tactics are used today. According to Maddow, sowing distrust in institutions "is part of the authoritarian project, and it always has been."

♬ original sound - MSNBC

I taught how to figure out what we can know, what's credible and valid in both my senior classes:

In my social science classes, I gave them an exercise to compare two sides on a controversial issue. 

I start by getting them to find any article about a study in the news or on social media, then dig for the original research article in a journal and look at if the news article and/or headline skewed the actual results or even completely misrepresented the results. I usually have a list of news articles on hand for people who need help with googling for information (something many students still need a lot of help with). Spoiler alert: lots of media outlets sensationalize pretty mundane research.

Maté: Part Depth Psychology, but Part Questionable Quick Fix

He received the Order of Canada, profoundly helped many people with addiction on the streets of Vancouver, and is much loved and admired, but some of Dr. Gabor Maté's claims feel like they don't hold water. And some claims might actually be dangerous if blindly accepted.

I've encountered Maté in a few courses I'm taking, and have been strongly encouraged to watch his newest film and read his book several times now; I opted for the former. One follower was excited to tell me, with great confidence, that ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease) is caused by a specific trauma and that everyone is carrying unresolved trauma which, if resolved, can heal physical ailments like cancer. Okay. I have some reservations that I've kept to myself until seeing so many in academia wholeheartedly promoting some poorly substantiated claims.

While Maté has some excellent techniques in the work he does, the way he presents and explains the material provokes me to look up research studies to try to corroborate many of his ideas.

I gobbled up his books twenty years ago, and there are some useful analogies and treatments in there, but even then there were parts that gave me pause.

Yup, Masks Really Work. I'm not Sure Why This is So Hard to Grasp!

I've been inundated lately with pictures from the sides of mask boxes that say something like this:

I could return volley with this, from the side of my 3M Aura N95s:

Instead I went for a lesson in logic, specifically, the fallacy of accident:

And here's a great thread from Dr. Jeff Gilchrist explaining the benefits of masks, again, for the benefit of the many many people out there who really don't think they do anything to prevent the spread of viruses:

On Silence in the Face of Alt-Facts

I think part of the reason we're swimming in crap is because we care more about being friendly than we do about spreading accurate claims. There are courses out there to learn how to detect bullshit, but maybe we also need to learn how to call something out without looking like a jerk.

The news media production of garbage is one part of the problem, but another important part is the widespread silence taken as acceptance of some claims that have no evidence to back them up. Sure there are the blindly obedient group, but my focus here is skeptical few who stand quietly by while others peddle their beliefs because it's seen as mean to question facts right to someone's face. It's seen as antithetical to forming allegiances, which has always been baffling to me. I think some of the closest friendships can be formed over a few good debates about facts and possibly differing interpretations. But people take offence when their beliefs are attacked, and all too often people are conflating their beliefs with misunderstood information.