Why I argue the way I do

The reasons I argue the positions I do

Where I came from

During my teenage years, I began to recognize that I held certain beliefs for which there was little, if any, credible evidence. This realization led me to question the nature of belief and faith, and, more fundamentally, what constitutes a sound basis for accepting something as true or factual.

Peer Review

Much of my education was in the sciences, an area I have always loved. Although belief, intuition, and inspiration may play important roles in motivating scientific inquiry, when it comes to evaluating scientific claims, a rigorous set of criteria must be applied.

For a scientist to rise to the top of a field, they must establish a reputation through meaningful contributions. Developing an entirely new idea or disproving a long-standing, widely accepted scientific theory can bring considerable recognition and propel a scientist to prominence. However, scientists must also recognize that their own claims will be subjected to the same scrutiny. Consequently, they must be meticulous in ensuring that their conclusions are supported by sound evidence and defensible reasoning. New ideas and claims will be challenged, often relentlessly.

These motivations help create an environment in which all scientific claims can, and should, be questioned, and the evidence supporting them critically examined. Findings are considered suspect or insufficient when they are not derived through sound methodology, reproducible procedures, and logical deductions. Researchers must also account for confounding variables and guard against the many cognitive biases and errors in reasoning to which humans are susceptible. It is through this process of rigorous examination and continual challenge that science moves toward an increasingly objective understanding of reality.

Think about how you were taught science in school. True, in grade and high school, you were taught to memorize and remember, unlike college. That said, experiments were performed in front of you so that you could observe the results firsthand. This was not simply to demonstrate how scientists arrived at their conclusions, but also to allow you to see the evidence for yourself rather than having to accept those conclusions on faith. Accepting scientific claims purely on belief is antithetical to the scientific process. Claims should be questioned, experiments repeated, and results independently confirmed. This is what makes science self-correcting. Incorrect claims, provided they are subjected to continued investigation and scrutiny, can eventually be identified and corrected. Examining Scientific Consensus may provide additional insight into my views on science and its findings.

Many I've talked to on the web love to say, "well, they're just parrotting what they were taught", or "that doesn't match what the general scientific beliefs, so they just reject it out of hand" as if scientists have a set of beliefs and cannot question them. This comes up a lot when talking about peer-review. The picture above, describing an "improved" Peer Review process always gets a laugh from graduate students and researchers, because they have experienced it themselves - the grueling process of getting past peer-review. Much of what they are publishing isn't against the commonly accepted ideas, but whenever you say something in a paper, you damn well better back it up, even if you were taught it as an undergrad.

After leaving school and entering the working world, I realized that I held a number of ideas that I had never examined particularly carefully. A friend who was a chemist challenged me on one of them. At the time, a persistent rumor circulated that someone had invented a tablet that, when added to water, would produce a substitute for gasoline, but that the oil companies had suppressed the invention. Although I did not actually believe the story, I considered it a possibility. My distrust of large corporations made me receptive to the idea that such an invention might exist and that the research had been deliberately concealed.

My friend said "You have a good grounding in chemistry. Is that even possible?".

When I stopped to consider the chemistry involved, the answer became obvious: it was not possible. That exchange prompted a much broader line of thinking. I began examining the criteria I use to determine what I consider true, as well as the many ways in which we deceive ourselves into accepting things without adequate justification.

This led me to investigate the common pitfalls in human reasoning that make us susceptible to deception and self-delusion, and, more importantly, to examine the standards of evidence necessary for accepting something as objectively real.

I am retired now, back in school and I'm going for fun. I am in graduate school for chemistry, working with a group that produces new molecules for imaging tumors, tissues, and a host of other medical applications. Everything mentioned so far I've seen in spades - a rigor that most cannot imagine when it comes to research claims.

If objective truth is important to you, making sure you understand what you know from evidence, and what you believe without evidence, and the importance of that difference.

Where I am I now

Since that time there have been several areas I look to when I hear or make an argument.

• Source of information: is the information solid, well supported, and logically consistent with the evidence it's based on.
• Do I want to believe it? This is critical. If I want to believe what I am being told, either because it resonates with something else I believe, because of my suspicions of big business, political enemies, groups I don't like, or simply because it is a common belief in groups I hang out with, then I have to be EXTREMELY careful with the evidence and logic. All these factors conspire to make me NOT want to examine or disprove them. Those are the ones I need to examine closely.
• Am I using any logical fallacies to justify my support of this new information? The reasons just mentioned would be the driving motivations behind it, but we use logical fallacies so often in our day to day lives we cease to be aware they are not logical, nor rational in the course of arriving at the truth.
• Checking to see if I am defending an idea and falling into a common trap, say due to cognitive dissonance or falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
• Am I rejecting evidence that contradicts what I accept, without good cause? Am I rejecting it to protect my own ego or falling prey to some of the reasoning fallacies above?

If I do not bother to check these in myself, I am doing any truth I may wish to speak a sincere injustice.