Making the case for credibility
In an op-ed for the Washington Post on February 3, discussing journalism, Ted Koppel wrote that “we are already knee deep in an environment that permits, indeed encourages, the viral distribution of pure nonsense.” What is disconcerting is that many people may not care, as long as the nonsense aligns with their worldview.
Take note, evaluators, and anyone for whom collecting evidence is important. If until now the critical issue was ensuring your evidence was credible, henceforth the challenge may be convincing others that credibility even matters. We have entered an era in which information has gone from being something more or less firm, to one in where it is going to be fluid.
The term ‘post-truth’ was selected by Oxford Dictionaries as the word of the year for 2016, defined as “Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” While Oxford Dictionaries has highlighted a serious problem with its selection, I think it would be more accurate to call post-truth the euphemism of the year. Post-truth just smells Orwellian; its academic-sounding preface adds a gloss of respectability to an insidious practice. Post-truth is not related to truth in the way post-modernism is related to modernism. The term hardly deserves to be dignified. A better description is ‘anti-truth.’ This would more accurately and honestly convey what happens when half-truths and falsehoods are spread, aimed at degrading the consensus on reality and contaminating public discourse.
Yes, there are grey areas when it comes to information. It can have multiple meanings. You can argue opposing sides by marshaling selective facts to make your case. (Lawyers are trained to do this.) Thus, it is accurate to note that under the Obama administration (January 2009 to January 2017) unemployment fell from 7.8 to 4.8 percent, which is a good thing. But you can also point to a fall in labor force participation rates from 65.7 to 62.9 percent. Not such a good thing. But in order to have a meaningful argument rather than, say, a shouting match, the basic facts must be accepted, and accessible, to all. If one side says, we don’t trust the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (where these data come from), they’re just a bunch of liars, then there is no basis for conversation.
What seems to be occurring is that one side has become increasingly less interested in engaging in a meaningful argument and is happy to make stuff up, i.e. invent facts. And when credible evidence is produced, it is now often derided as false. For example, the controversy over Obama’s birth certificate: although the certificate was made available in 2011, as of 2016, 41 percent of Republicans disagreed with the statement in a NBC News|SurveyMonkey poll that “Barack Obama was born in the United States.”
Will the skepticism of credible sources filter down to the technical research work conducted in the social sciences? Let us hope not, although the new Administration’s gag order on scientists in federal agencies is not encouraging. We may have to confront a whole new dilemma. No longer will it be sufficient to provide credible evidence, transparency of methodology, and detailed information on sources. We may need to defend the very concept of credibility, make a case why credibility matters to those who disagree.