A Fortune in Lies.

We know that the Internet — humanity’s most powerful technological tool for disseminating the collective knowledge of our species — is in a sad state of affairs when the phrase “alternative facts” is something we have to contend with on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the rise of these so-called “alternative facts” is nothing new.

From the confusion that arose most recently in the 1980s, regarding the dangers of first- and second-hand smoke, to the existence of acid rain, the environmental damage caused by CFCs, the existence of middle-east WMDs, and the more recent denial of man-made climate change, “alternative facts” have been used for decades to plant seeds of doubt that served to obscure truth, manufacture public consent, create confusion, or just maintain the status quo. (In fact, it has frequently been the exact same group of “scientists” responsible for manufacturing doubt in each of the cases listed above. For more on this, read Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.) The worst part is that there is a great fortune to be made in these lies and little to be gained (monetarily speaking) from telling the truth.

It is no coincidence that “scientists” who were funded by the tobacco industry found no link between cigarettes and cancer, just like the “scientists” who have been funded by the fossil fuel industry claim that climate change and irreparable damage to the environment are little more than hoaxes or, worse, communist scare-tactics. In both cases, the aim is simple: to maintain the status quo, make hay while the sun is shining, and wring as much profit out of the public before the truth is finally universally known. In both cases, the truth was known long before it was made public, but was swept under the rug so as not to interfere with profit.

Some sources of mis- (and dis)-information, while not nearly as insidious as those listed above, can still be extremely detrimental to the discovery and propagation of the truth. Perhaps because this most recent election cycle was so ripe for parody, we have seen a staggering increase in the volume of satirical “news articles” written and published on the Internet. Even parody and satire can serve a positive purpose by forcing us to take a hard look in the mirror (even if it’s the kind of mirror you’d find in a carnival funhouse). The problems arise when the quantity of satire almost outweighs the quantity of facts and people begin to place stock in the former rather than the latter. Because of this, due diligence and fact-checking have become more important than ever.

The danger of lies masquerading as “alternative facts” isn’t confined to the Internet, though; external obstacles to the truth can exist anywhere there is media. How do we begin to sift through the lies to find truth in this age of information overload?

We must test the evidence.

1. Evidence

Before we can begin to determine the validity of the evidence supporting a claim, we must first have evidence to examine. While this sounds pretty straightforward, a good portion of the claims being made today do not have any supporting evidence whatsoever.

If I tell you that I have a pet unicorn but am unable or unwilling to furnish any evidence, you would be a fool to believe me. If I tell you I’m going to build a fence that my neighbor is going to pay for, and I offer no evidence to support that claim, you’d be a fool to believe me. Likewise, if a political figure claims to have had the biggest inauguration crowd in history, but has no evidence to support his claim — and he in fact can be summarily dismissed with the basic photographic evidence that does exist — his claim can be dismissed out of hand.

As the late journalist and religious, literary, and social critic, Christopher Hitchens, once said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” No evidence warrants no belief.

2. Reliability

Let’s assume now that we have encountered a claim that has been presented with some supporting evidence. The first test of our evidence is reliability. The reliability of the evidence is closely linked with the reliability of the source of the evidence. Does our evidence come from tabloid newspapers? Satirical websites? Conspiracy theorists? Alex Jones? Roger Stone? Proper evidence should be drawn from sources that have a history of reliability and that have been seen to be correct many times in the past.

Internet and television stars who pride themselves on being irresponsibly sensationalist and outrageous for the sake of ratings, views, likes, shares, et cetera, are NOT reliable sources of evidence. Additionally, personal anecdotes — and anecdotes that were passed down through a telephone game of story-telling — are often distorted and/or misleading, and thus not reliable sources of evidence.

3. Relevance

The evidence that is presented in support of a claim should be relevant to that claim. Again, this sounds a bit obvious, but there’s a little more to it. The evidence related to a claim could be correlational or it could be causal.

A correlational relationship is one that exists between two variables that can be used to describe or predict information.

A causal relationship is one that exists when one action appears to have caused a second action.

This is where we can sometimes run in to trouble. The difference is not always clear between correlational data and causal data. Correlation does not imply causation. Example: The sun goes behind a cloud when it rains. Rain is often correlated with the sun disappearing behind a cloud. Does that mean that the sun going behind a cloud caused the rain? No. When examining evidence and determining its relevance, it’s important to ask yourself whether the evidence could simply be correlational, or causal.

4. Expertise

The next test that our evidence should be subjected to is the test of expertise. Is our evidence drawn from sources that have a strong and knowledgable background? Is the subject matter of their expertise relevant to the claims being made?

• Is Jenny McCarthy more knowledgeable than most regarding what it means to be a model, or an actress, or a TV host? I would say so. Is her expertise in those areas applicable to physical health, medical treatments, or vaccinations? Nope.
• Is America’s current president an expert on how to abuse bankruptcy laws for personal gain? Absolutely. Is his expertise in that area relevant to governing a nation? Nope.
• Is the expertise of a master carpenter necessarily applicable to plumbing, electrical wiring, or automotive repair? Nope to all of the above.

Call me crazy, but I would rather have an auto mechanic take a look at the knocking sound in my car’s engine than a hot air balloon aficionado. If you’ve ever taken your car to a garage for repairs instead of a certified tax preparer, you’ve utilized the test of expertise. When testing your evidence, ask first if the source is an expert in that respective field. If the answer is yes, have they published books? Papers? Peer-reviewed articles? Have they been well-educated in the relevant field? Be sure to look at the source in addition to the credentials of the source.

5. Objectivity

So, we’ve made it this far; we have evidence; our evidence is from a reliable source; our reliable source is an expert on the subject matter. What’s next? Is the expert objective? Evidence should be gathered from sources who hold a fair, disinterested, and undistorted view. An objective and disinterested expert is one who has no emotional, political, or financial ties to the subject in question.

Looking back at the earlier examples of the studies done regarding tobacco and fossil fuels, the experts were clearly not objective. If the expert under scrutiny is on the payroll of a special interest group, it’s a safe bet that their evidence — whatever it is — is going to be skewed. ExxonMobil doesn’t shell out (see what I did there?) money for scientific studies if they’re not expecting a certain return on that investment.

Likewise, when watching or reading news, another important point to consider is whether or not there is a conflict of interest when it comes to reporting the truth. The 2016 presidential primaries illustrated this point perfectly. Sources that were normally trustworthy and relatively unbiased began to show a strong bias toward Hillary Clinton. It was often the case that the news station or website in question was owned by either Comcast or Time Warner. Both Comcast and Time Warner were significant contributors to the Clinton campaign. Political donors are NOT objective sources of information. They should only be expected to act in their best interest and usually that means fudging the facts and bending the truth to support their chosen candidate or smear a competitor. When in doubt, follow the money.

6. Consistency

Moving right along, we arrive at consistency. The evidence supporting the claim being made should be consistent both internally as well as externally.

If evidence is internally inconsistent, it will contradict itself. Evidence that is not internally consistent should be disregarded.

If evidence is externally inconsistent, it will contradict similar data or studies done outside of itself. However, external inconsistency doesn’t mean the evidence is invalid. It does mean, though, that additional evidence may be required (remember Carl Sagan: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”).

Many times throughout history, prevailing belief has been unseated by externally inconsistent ideas. However, that didn’t happen by accident. The burden of proof was on those making the new claim, and the evidence presented was sufficient to overthrow the old ideas (geocentrism, flat-earth theories, hollow-earth theories, young-earth theories, dolphins are fish, bats are birds, et cetera…). As we have seen, it is possible, but the evidence must go above and beyond.

7. Recency

The evidence supporting any given claim should be based on the most current studies, data, or information available. This test of evidence needs very little explanation. Our world maps aren’t based on those made by cartographers in the 1500s. We don’t get our current news from last week’s newspaper, and we don’t still use leeches to treat hemorrhoids. If the source of your evidence is outdated, chances are good your claim is, too.

Depending on who you ask, there may be more or fewer tests for evidence than this. Regardless, when analyzing any new claim and its supporting evidence, this list would be an excellent start. One other important question to ask when examining evidence in favor of a claim is, “Has anything been omitted?” “Has all relevant information been included?” Or, “Has the publisher of the study left out a key piece of evidence that would defeat their claim?” As we can see, skepticism is a crucial part of being an informed citizen.

In this age of information overload, where there is money to be made by obscuring the truth with manufactured doubt, it is becoming more and more important to ensure that our view of the world is informed not by belief, or opinion, but by fact. Unfortunately, with everything that’s out on the Internet these days, if we aren’t willing to be skeptical and diligent when it comes to vetting new information, maybe we aren’t responsible enough to be connected to it. Sadly, there is a fortune to be made by selling lies. Luckily, we no longer have to be the ones to pay for it. We can do better than that.

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” — H.L. Mencken