Humans have always nurtured their own
beliefs and opinions by selecting sources that reinforce their inclinations and
biases. From the books and newspapers we read, to the blogs and TV channels we access,
this defence of one’s view of the world
might be termed ‘media-picking’, the equivalent, on a larger scale, of
one-sided ‘cherry-picking’ of evidence, a technique of ‘bad science’ used to
support a particular hypothesis or to defend a biased point of view.
Many of us were educated to believe that
‘objective’ evidence was preferable to ‘subjective’ opinion as a way of making
meaning and judgments in the search for truth.
Certainly, as a teacher I was encouraged to commit myself to reason,
logic and fairness in the way I exposed my pupils to ideas. Controversial
issues involving opposing and contradictory values were meant to be
acknowledged and a ‘balance’ struck, by presenting all sides of the argument.
This would encourage learners to examine critically their own positions and
whether these could be justified by using evidence about cause and consequence.
In the physical sciences objectivity seemed
easier to achieve than in the humanities where values came more obviously into
play. How, for example, was one to deal with religions which all claimed their
own ‘true beliefs’ not based on evidence, but
on ancient ‘holy books’ that required ‘faith’ in the words of God? Paul
Krugman (NYT, 11.02.13) describes one political stance advocated in Bible Belt
Texas:
Last year
the Texas G.O.P. explicitly condemned efforts to teach “critical
thinking skills,” because, it said, such efforts “have the purpose of
challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
In contrast, the natural laws of physics,
chemistry and biology based on scientific consensus, seemed relatively
value-free. They seemed amenable to reason and logic, although a fundamental
belief in the value of reason and logic was implied. Many who adopt a naturalistic worldview based
on science and reason hold a ‘fixed belief’ in reason, logic and universal
natural laws. These beliefs have led to the advance of sciences such as
medicine and the capacity to extend life-spans and define and protect human
well-being and rights. A remarkable degree of specialisation and research has
contributed to these social and technological advances although this has led to
a level of complexity that makes it very hard to see the ‘big picture’. Humankind
may be advancing towards large-scale disaster due to the widespread inability
to see interrelated trends and the consequences of the exponential impact of
human activity on the planet.
Biased media and politically-driven
preference for ideological persuasion rather than evidence-based reason present
major obstacles to reasoned examination of global issues. So does excessive
specialisation in education and research and the fragmentation of school
curricula. The rise of religious fundamentalism that is antipathetic to science
and reason and the spread of ‘faith schools’ also encourages rather than
diminishes the search for objectivity.
Of course, depending on what we believe, or
upon our wishful thinking, we mostly media-pick and cherry-pick even when
scientific consensus emerges on what is happening to our world. There is a full
range of blogs, books, newspapers and other media outlets, academic
institutions from which we can select to feed our pre-existing beliefs.
Many important issues such as economic
growth, climate change or human rights have become politicised and balanced
scientific reason has been trumped by ideology. Even the ‘objectivity’ of
scientists is not always safeguarded. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science and author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of
Scientists Obscure the Truth about Climate Change has recorded how a small
number of politically motivated scientists waged successful delaying campaigns
by spreading doubt on emerging evidence about the dangers of smoking, the use
of herbicides and pesticides, CFCs, and global warming, and now its
anthropogenic causes. Powerful corporations, groups and individuals with vested
interests in the creation and concentration of wealth, drive economic growth
and exercise disproportionate influence over mass media and political
decision-makers.
Surely a key element in the teaching of critical thinking,
given that this is not suppressed by political or religious ideology or by an
overemphasis on test results, must be a focus on human bias that leads to media
and cherry-picking. In facing the challenges of the Anthropocene Age, it seems
vital to promote self-understanding and a commitment to evidence in an effort
to diminish bias at all educational levels.
Michael Shermer (2011) The
Believing Brain: How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths offers
a detailed analysis of how we spend our entire lives media-picking and
cherry-picking in defence of our own biases. Stuart Sutherland’s classic and
iconoclastic study Irrationality (1992)
also offers an overview of experimental psychological research into human behaviour
that will challenge every reader to consider their own irrationality. For
anyone wishing to stimulate critical thinking or to uphold their ‘fixed belief’
in the merits of rational scepticism, these two cherries offer highly
nourishing pickings!
David Oldroyd
