"Research Shows..."
If you really want someone to believe you, all it takes is to preface it with “research shows ...,” or “experts say ...,” or “scientists believe .…”
I’ve collected a handful of random statements from various editorials and articles. We know for certain that these are indeed “facts”, because, well, see above. In no particular order:
Generous government social services make people happier.
Hiring based on race, not merit, makes a business more competitive.
Public schools better serve the community than private schools.
Marijuana use always leads to more dangerous drug use.
Humans are causing global warming.
Inflation is good for the economy.
Wearing masks and closing schools stops the spread of COVID.
All living things evolved into existence on their own, using only the laws of physics
Along with “expert” testimony, you also got your statistics. And no matter what your agenda or ideology, there’s a statistic out there somewhere to prove your case. One advantage to online articles is that, when quoting facts, the author can use Inline linking, so that the reader can verify the sources, and ensure that it’s not yet another ideological group pushing their agenda. And there lies the rub, for as everyone knows, 62.47% of statistics are made up.
The research methodology is also important, for crummy methods yield worthless data. The worst method of all is public opinion polls. Here’s a typical scenario: the phone rings (I presume the phone is still the primary data collection device) and some voice on the other end asks the callee about some issue, or if the callee thinks the President is doing a good job, or whatever. Right off the bat, I'm curious how this callee was selected, and how many people they are actually calling to assume that their collected data truly represents the entire nation.
And how come I never get called?
Anyway, how does the polled individual respond? Probably along the lines of: "Hmm. Well, I heard on the news that jobs are being created, inflation is down, and the pundits really liked his SOTU speech, so yeah, Biden’s doing a bang-up job, absolutely!"
Looking back, the goofiest ever public opinion poll results were right after the 9/11 attacks, when George W. Bush got the highest approval rating in history at a whopping 90%. These attacks were an utter and complete failure of foreign policy and military defense, resulting in zillions of dollars of property destruction and thousands of lives lost. Bush just happened to be the sitting POTUS at that moment, and for some befuddling reason, poll respondents said: yep, he's doing a super job!
On public opinion polls regarding issues and attitudes about government, the responses are ridiculously inconsistent. Pew Research Center, for over a decade now, has been asking respondents if they trust government. Presently, only 17% of respondents said they trust it “always or most of the time”. And 78% percent say they are "frustrated" or "angry" with the federal government. BUT, if asked about some individual, specific issue, and whether government should spend more or less money thereof, the results are always heavy on the “spend more” side. Go figure.
The optimal research methodology is a blind controlled experiment where one group is the “control” and the other is the “test”. Participants do not know which group they are in. Granted, sometimes controlled experiments are impossible or impractical. The “fact” that humans are causing global warming falls into this category, for it’s kinda hard to run this test on a pair of planets. Yet the experts use this “settled science” to argue for all sorts of additional governmental control over our lives.
A lack of evidence should neither be reason to be persuaded. When experts say “there is no evidence to prove ... “ that usually means that they haven’t looked hard enough, or cannot find “facts” that match the conclusion. Here’s an example: One can argue that free enterprise works better than socialism and fascism because we have some events in history that can be considered a controlled test. Look at East and West Germany. Or North and South Korea. Here we have pairs of countries, with the same history, same culture, same language, et cetera - but one has/had a thriving economy and the other is/was an economic basket case.
The lesson learned is to always be cynical about what the “research shows” or “scientists say”. Look for data that is truly verifiable, and comes from a trustworthy source. But remember that plain old logic and persuasion usually work better anyway.
Finally: I had to throw in the blurb above about creationism versus evolution, a topic that is clearly not about politics. It’s an age-old raging debate that shows no signs of slacking off in our lifetime. I brought it up because it’s an excellent example where the “experts” tend to fall into one side (in this case: the evolutionary side). I will address this weighty topic in a future article.
Public opinion polls are stupid. Most people polled no nothing or just what they’ve heard in soundbites about anything.
I look forward to your evolution/creation article.