Analysis: some simple, practical guidance on working out what is - and what is not - BS when it comes to online information
By Áine MacNamara and Jamie Taylor, DCU
One of the great challenges of the human condition is learning and the acquisition of adaptive beliefs. Indeed, humans have spent so long arguing about what we should and should not believe, a whole branch of philosophy called Epistemology is devoted to it.
Clearly, being proficient or indeed considering oneself an expert in any domain relies on the ability to access and use high quality information. In this regard, science communication has traditionally been the remit of peer-reviewed journals with information being shared, almost exclusively, within the academia. For those at the coalface, research remains largely inaccessible, often residing behind paywalls and subject to accusations of inaccessible language and jargon. For example, how many teachers pick up a journal of education?
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, Mark Little from Kinzen on misinformation and disinformation
At the same time, it been easier to access and share information, perspective and opinion. As was evident during the pandemic, Twitter, Facebook and podcasts mean everyone can 'do their own research'. As they say ‘opinions are like ***holes everybody has one!".
The quality of the information on these platforms, and equally importantly the balance of the information circulated, is not subject to quality control, one of the great privileges of living in a free society. But this means the ability to circulate impactful ideas, that are persistent and persuasive but potentially lacking evidential grounding, is a real danger. Social media connections and algorithm driven information-sharing may also lead to alternative views and conflicting evidence being hidden or ignored. We tend to listen to people who share information about things that appeal to us; an echo-chamber.
We are in an ‘age of disinformation’ and we no doubt face issues with the quality of information we interact with. While society is hungry for information, critical consumption hasn’t kept pace with the generation of content. On the one hand, some people are extremely willing to offer opinions about subjects they know little. One the other, criticality is a depressingly rare occurrence in the face of a rising tide of bullshit which we believe is playing a growing role in filling the knowledge gap across society.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
From RTÉ's Truth Matters podcast, Della Kilroy and Shane Creevy on the challenges in preventing the spread of misinformation and disinformation online
Bullshit is defined by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt as the process of communicating with little to no concern for evidence, or truth. Bullshitting is said to occur because people feel the need to express an opinion that makes them appear informed. Worryingly, people who often BS may eventually believe their own BS and cognitive dissonance may lead to the motivated forgetting of information inflating confidence in falsehoods.
To combat BS and generate useful knowledge, philosopher Carl Sagan suggested we should learn to think like a scientist. His 'baloney detection kit' for critical thinking proposed a set of cognitive tools to uncover errors, flawed thinking, false assertions, preposterous claims, pseudoscience and myths. Simple, practical guidance on working out what is, and is not, BS:
There must be independent confirmation of the ‘facts’
Ask for supporting evidence and don’t take things at face value. This encourages you to validate information, despite potential social pressure and should lead you to a deeper understanding.
Look for attempts to offer a balanced argument
Avoid insular networks that serve as an echo chamber and, instead, surround yourself with divergent opinions.
Engage in debate
Listening to both sides of an argument and weighing up the evidence allows you to arrive at a reasoned position for accepting, or rejecting a particular stance.
The authorities can be wrong
Often ideas are attractive because of who is proposing them (e.g., a figure of authority) or their assurance of what they offer (identifying the next ‘sure thing’). Look for the evidence and question: "why this way, and not another way?"
Keep an open mind
Do not get overly attached to an idea or way of doing something either because it is your idea, or it is something that you have always done.
Measure things
Whenever possible, gather data to test what you are doing, how you are doing it, and most importantly, why.
Occam’s razor
When you have two competing theories that make the same predictions, the simpler one is the better. Solutions should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
What does this mean for us as we continue to live in a poorly filtered but information-rich world? We are certainly not suggesting censorship of blogs, tweets, academic journals or other media. We are stressing the need to couple an openness to new ideas with criticality and scepticism as a positive step against BS. Indeed, keeping an open mind and understanding how we reject BS can make us more aware of our own (potential) BS.
As Sagan suggests, "at the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless sceptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense."
Dr Áine MacNamara is an Associate Professor in Elite Performance at the School of Health and Human Performance at DCU. Dr Jamie Taylor is an Assistant Professor in Elite Performance at the School of Health and Human Performance at DCU.
The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent or reflect the views of RTÉ
