Making A Point or Making A Difference?
No….You’re Stupid!!!
If you’ve spent any significant time on social media, you may have seen some back-and-forth interactions that are frankly “not pretty.” Especially within the last 4-6 years, I feel that many issues have become unnecessarily polarized and politicized.
Back in the day, I used to participate in chats that could conclude with “agreeing to disagree.” Truthfully, at that time, there wasn’t as much at stake in most of those conversations. This made sense and wasn’t something that I regret. While there were some facts presented, I would say that it was mostly a debate of opinions. We knew what they were: opinions. However, OPINIONS AREN’T ALWAYS FACTS AND THEY’RE NOT ALWAYS TRUE.
However, now, I feel that there are more opinions presented as fact. There is an additional factor: name calling. No matter which side that you are on, I can’t imagine hearing someone out, if they call me names and this is with what they lead. Name calling doesn’t create facts.
The Scientific Method
I know that it’s been awhile, since I’ve done a science fair project, but I do remember my science teachers teaching the scientific method. It is a great framework for understanding how science works. More importantly, it can help me to see if I’m “right” or where I need to adjust my opinions.
Khan Academy provides a great overview, which I will now share:
Make an observation
Ask a question
Form a hypothesis (testable explanation)
Make a prediction based on the hypothesis
Test the prediction (experiment)
Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions
I want to take these bullet points and simplify them. So, with the scientific process, we observe; then, try to find a testable explanation to explain our observations; based on that testable explanation, we use a well designed experiment to see what happens; we review those results to see where we were “right” and where we were “wrong”; based on the actual results, we make new, accurate conclusions. As the scientific method repeats, true, our correct knowledge changes over time.
At times, findings can be reviewed or re-examined to see if a past experiment was well designed or to repeat the same experiment to recreate the results. This is where peer-review comes into play.
Peer Review and Credible Sources
The other day, I saw this Facebook meme, which made me think of this post, so I’d like to break down its great points:
Credible sources: The Purdue Writing Lab defines them as “authors respected in their fields of study.” In addition, “credible authors will cite their sources so that you can check the accuracy of and support for what they've written.”
The Purdue Writing Lab further says that “sources on…areas that are experiencing rapid changes, need to be much more current.“ A great way to filter sources says “…you should take the purpose or point of view of the author into consideration.“ Also, “you need to be careful that your sources don't limit your coverage of a topic to one side of a debate.“
Lastly, there is this recommendation, “Be especially careful when evaluating Internet sources!…anyone can add or change content.“Peer-reviewed: The USGS (US Geological Survey) defines the peer-review process that “subjects an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality.” The USGS further explains the reason for peer-review “Peer review…validates and ensures the quality of published U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science…Qualified peer reviewers of USGS information products possess the appropriate education or expertise and additionally have no stake in the outcome of the review or publication of the work and are not directly associated with the particular work being performed.“
So let’s summarize some of the important, useful takeaways from this meme to help us separate useful, correct information from what is too questionable to be trusted nor considered reliable. Think of peer review as “scientific quality control.”
When following a series of credible sources, it’s useful to know things not limited to where they come from (ex. what was the cited study) or if the reviewers independently (from each other) confirm the accuracy to still support the experiment’s conclusion(s).
How old are these sources? Especially when dealing with science or technology, it’s not necessarily “true” that old information or conclusions is “wrong,” but it is true that new information or research provides a better, validated, accurate “picture.” There are certain areas, where I wouldn’t want to use 50 year old research, when there’s newer, accurate data, especially that shows how those previous conclusions may no longer valid or prove be dangerous.
Did you start with your conclusion or opinion (what you but “feel” but may not necessarily be correct, accurate) and trying to find information to “support” them, while potentially ignoring or sacrificing factual accuracy? Or are you looking through the broadest, credible sources? Are you willing to admit if/when these other broad/credible sources prove you “wrong?”
Have qualified colleagues confirmed your source’s information or research? Did the peer reviewer have no conflicts of interest (ex. financial incentive, damaged professional “reputation,” etc.)?
I think that the questions generated by these bullet points are extremely valid. When looking at what we and others say, I think that it’s the ultimate mark of humility to admit error. It’s a tragic mark of ego and hubris to consider ourselves beyond mistakes and that our opinions are beyond question nor criticism.
So…Making A Point or Making A Difference?
I’d like to return to this post’s title, “Making A Point or Making A Difference?” If we’re talking about individuals that seek attention from manipulating others’ reactions, jump to another point when their point is disproven, provide limited “sources” and completely ignore other valid ones that could contradict their opinion or “facts”, feel that anyone that disagrees with them is stupid, “the enemy” or “evil” (which, usually isn’t truly the case), then I don’t know if there is much hope that my points presented will make any impact on them.
To be clear, I’m not an expert, except maybe where my knowledge is deep. Even then, I can still be wrong and that’s okay. I can admit that I don’t know what I don’t know. Getting things wrong doesn’t mean that I’m a “bad” or “stupid.” I don’t feel that being “proven wrong” is a personal insult. More importantly, modifying my opinions doesn’t mean that I’m “wishy-washy“ or indecisive. It means that I’m fallible, very human and with the ability to necessarily change.
Some time ago, I heard how one of the Greek philosopher, Socrates’ favorite questions was, “Why?” If someone that considered themselves an “expert,” presented him what they knew to be true, he would sincerely ask, “Why?” Often, the question would upset the “expert.” Why? I would think that, if what they knew to be true came from confirmed sources, then the answer should come easily. If their answer is filled with much hesitation or, at worst, complete silence, then do they have an answer? I don’t think so.
For me, I would answer this post’s title by saying that, above all else, I want to make a difference. When I participate in any sort of conversation, I may or may not be able to make a point: maybe I don’t have the necessary knowledge or experience, maybe the other person(s) doesn’t give me an opportunity to talk or maybe it’s not a conversation worth continuing. I would rather make a difference in my life, in that of the other conversationalist or for the people around me. On the other hand, the other conversationalist might make a difference to me, especially if they have better, credible sources than me.
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND IT’S ALWAYS BY MAKING A POINT.
Be sure to follow me at The Jose Rodriguez (Facebook), The Jose Rodriguez (Twitter) or The Jose Rodriguez (Instagram).
Also, if you know someone that would enjoy or benefit from reading this post or others, please share with them.