Detecting media and cherry-picking: A key educational aim?

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