Thinking Critically about Online Sources

As previous articles of mine have shown, and as one would expect of someone with years of philosophical training, I am incredibly concerned not only by the lack of any real ‘critical thinking’ involved in how some people approach information which can be found online, but even more so by the mischaracterization and bastardization of what constitutes ‘critical thinking’ in the first place. In the hope of providing a simple and concise educational tool, which can have a general application, I have determined there are four important questions we can ask when evaluating an online source: (i) “What is/are the central claim(s) being made?”, (ii) “Who is/are the author(s)?”, (iii) “Does expert consensus testify in favour of the claims being made?”, and (iv) “Could something else explain the claims being made or could other conclusions be more reasonably drawn from them?” In short, we can use the acronym ‘C.A.T.S’ to describe this method:

Central claim(s)?

Author(s)?

Testification?

Some other explanation or conclusion?

In order to make this form of analysis clearer, it can be applied to the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ as an example. First, what is/are the central claim(s) being made? We can list them as follows:

1. Current lockdown measures are leading to devastating effects on short- and long-term public health, such as…

(a) Lower childhood vaccination rates.

(b) Worsening cardiovascular disease.

(c) Fewer cancer screenings.

(d) Deteriorating mental health.

2. The underprivileged are disproportionately victimized by these devastating short- and long-term public health effects.

3. COVID-19 is not that serious, as…

(a) It disproportionately affects the vulnerable, e.g. the elderly.

(b) For the young, COVID-19 is less dangerous than other harmful things, e.g. influenza.

4. We should, instead of implementing wide lockdown measures, allow natural infection to occur within less vulnerable populations in order to develop herd immunity, allow less vulnerable populations to return to ‘life as normal,’ and engage in ‘Focused Protection’ of those who are most at risk.

Breaking down the central claims this way, we see that claims (1) to (3) are descriptive ‘matter of fact’ claims — i.e. they are contingently true or false claims about some state of affairs — and claim (4) is prescriptive — i.e. it is a claim about what we should or should not do, rather than describing some state of affairs. Within epistemology (the branch of philosophy which is centered around the question “What does it mean to know something?”), however, there is something called the ‘fact-value distinction,’ which suggests that one cannot infer a prescriptive claim from a descriptive claim or vice versa; that is, in accordance with our current topic, there is a large gap between claims (1) to (3) and claim (4). This will be elucidated further later on.

Second, who is/are the author(s) involved here? Are they reputable? Do they perhaps have some other motivations behind the claim(s) they are making, such as a financial incentive which may perhaps lead to the misrepresentation or distortion of data (what is referred to as a ‘conflict of interest’)? If so, should this have any impact upon how we analyze their claim(s) here?

One of the Declaration’s authors — Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD — had previously published a paper, in line with claim (3)(b) above, which suggested that COVID-19 infection rates and immunity were up to 85% higher than what we had previously assumed, and thus the mortality rates are actually between 0.12% and 0.2% — similar to the roughly 0.1% mortality rate from the flu. This study — which quickly gained momentum in far-right circles — was not only heavily criticized by experts for lacking sound evidence, but it was later revealed to have been funded in part by JetBlue and that Bhattacharya and the study’s co-author ignored concerns from scientists that the antibody tests they used were inaccurate. So what is the conflict of interest here? Well, of course, one of the interests of scientific work is accurate data collection and reporting, whereas an interest of JetBlue would be profit — as airlines have suffered financially from travel restrictions.

Another author — Martin Kulldorff, PhD — has developed a reputation of defending COVID-19-related falsehoods which were spouted by the Trump administration, such as those pertaining to herd immunity which are noted in claim (4). In line with claim (3)(b) above, Kulldorf has also claimed that COVID-19 is not a serious disease at all for those in their 20s and 30s, which — as we will discuss earlier — is far from the truth. The final author — Sunetra Gupta, PhD — has previously made similar claims to Kulldorff, such as those pertaining to herd immunity.

Should the authors themselves have any impact upon how we view the Declaration? Yes — they definitely should, but Bhattacharya should in particular. Not only is a conflict of interest an incredible violation of academic ethics, but the results of this conflict of interest are reflected within the Declaration itself, i.e. in claim (3)(b).

Third, does the scientific community, or other experts, testify for or against the claims made within the Declaration? Yes and no; that is, ‘yes’ to claims (1) and (2) but ‘no’ to claim (3). Regarding (1), (b) and (d) reflect a general consensus within the health and psychological sciences. Lockdown measures restrict and reduce movement, and it is well known that a sedentary lifestyle is positively correlated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. It is also well-documented that social isolation has an adverse effect on mental and physical health. Regarding (2), studies have shown that those afflicted with poverty have higher stress-related brain activity, which is linked with greater inflammation within the body and a higher risk of developing cardiovascular issues, and the elderly as well as those who are racially marginalized have an increased risk of suffering the adverse health effects of social isolation.

Claim (3), however, is incredibly problematic. Not only does it reflect the reports contained within Bhattacharya’s study, which has been heavily criticized for resulting from a conflict of interest and for lacking sound evidence, it also contradicts the majority of the credible data currently available. The mortality rates, according to the latest data available from John Hopkins University, are significantly higher on average and per capita than the 0.12%-0.2% figure which Bhattacharya reported. Furthermore, as the World Health Organization (WHO) has noted, mortality rates for COVID-19 can be incredibly regional: “Countries are difficult to compare for a number of reasons. They may be more or less likely to detect and report all COVID-19 deaths. Furthermore, they may be using different case definitions and testing strategies or counting cases differently (for example, with mild cases not being tested or counted). […] Differing quality of care or interventions being introduced at different stages of the illness also may play a role. Finally, the profile of patients (for example their age, sex, ethnicity and underlying comorbidities) may vary between countries.”

Fourth, and finally, we return to the normative claim of (4). Not only should the fact-value distinction play a role in how we evaluate claim (4) in light of claims (1) to (3), but we must also ask “Are there justifiable alternatives to address the concerns which have been raised?” Could we not, if we are concerned with the potential for an increase of cardiovascular issues due to lockdown, instead suggest that those in lockdown should be mindful of their need to exercise and not remain too sedentary? Could we not, if we are concerned with the potential for an increase of mental health issues due to the social isolation which lockdowns may entail, instead suggest that people be mindful of maintaining some form of social interaction, albeit at a distance through phone calls, video calls, etc.? Lastly, could we not, if we are concerned with how the marginalized can be more adversely affected due to lockdowns, instead work to reduce their stress by placing a moratorium on rent and mortgage payments, as well as providing stimulus checks sufficient enough for their lack of work during lockdown to not adversely affect them much? That such things are a concern for us, and what our responsibilities are in dealing with them, are not only moral questions which cannot have their answer inferred necessarily from descriptive claims, but the plurality of answers which can be provided ought to make us look at claim (4) with a critical eye.

Originally published on theleftgazette.com.