I grew up with libraries, books, and the Encyclopedia. I remember in graduate school (Master’s degree time) having to take a list of descriptors to the Librarian to do a literature search. I would have to come back a day later to pick up the results (10¢ a hit—so you better pick your descriptors wisely). Prior to that, we had the Science Citation Index—volumes of bound citations that should make one grateful for the Internet). Today, of course, I can do it myself in minutes using the university library search tools. We also have Google Scholar. Nevertheless, it seems, most find their information via basic Internet searches (which are biased by your algorithms) or haphazardly from their social media feeds. We tend to be fed a constant diet of information that conforms to our narrative –furthering our confirmation biases. And adding to this narrowing of information is the practice of ‘shadow banning’ and censorship under the guise of “fact-checking” on social media. As such, we are fed a diet of controlled information.
I noticed the other day (actually, I noticed it quite a while ago) that those who would control information are quick to point out that studies that do not support their narrative are “not peer-reviewed”, but hide the fact when the study supports their narrative. The limitations of studies are identified when the results are contrary to one’s biases, but justified when the study supports said biases. All the while, these sources claim to “follow the science.” Science, however, is rarely cut-and-dry. Science tests hypotheses and draws conclusions from the cumulative results. In essences, it weighs the scales of supporting evidence. It addresses contrary evidence—and, sometimes, has to concede that the evidence is equivocal or that the hypothesis was not supported.
In the last 18-months, there seems to be a flood of studies that are released ahead of print. (I have one such paper that has released in January, but has still not gone “to print.”) In some cases, this is an advantage of the digital age. In some cases, this is confusing because it leads to a potential release of information prematurely. This is where we need to use critical thinking skills (and where I wish such skills were being more effectively taught in K-12!). “Pre-print” or “ahead of print” may or may not be “peer-reviewed.” In general, they have been and the status should be reported (and it often is—we just choose not to look). Peer-reviewed should be an indication that the article has been scrutinized by “experts” in the field. The level of scrutiny varies among journals, which makes it challenging to assess the information. Over all, we must scrutinize the information for ourselves. We must did deeper.
Often, the popular media will highlight one study, and this what we base our understanding on. In addition, the popular media are selective in the conclusions drawn from the one study. Unlike scientific reviews, they do not gather information from other studies (often contradictory studies) to draw conclusions. As a result, we are often misled. We are fed a narrative.
We must learn to gather information for ourselves. Our access is better than it was in the ‘60s and ‘70s with World Book or Britannica. We have the Internet, if we use it wisely. We have an accumulation of information, if we take the effort to dig through it. Scientific literature can be hard to read, but we can learn. A great starting point in gathering information is to read peer-reviewed scientific review papers (and meta-analysis papers) on a given topic—and following up with articles cited in the bibliography. We can read books rather than “book.” We can read that which challenges our biases with an open mind. We can (must) question all that we have been taught and (especially) all the information we are being fed. It just takes a little effort and critical thinking.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!!