I wrote the following blog in 2016 just before the Presidential elections that year. I am often guilty of too many political rants. I wrote the following blog and four others on the search for Truth and the relevance of facts, data, and evidence in this search. Some of the issues I describe here happened 9 years ago but as you will see, they are just as relevant and pertinent today as they were then. In fact, they are even more so. Regardless of your political persuasion, it is important to understand how Truth can be found and whether or not we are being lied to and conned. The US government has for many years developed a variety of means to obfuscate, ignore and/or stretch the Truth. If we as citizens can see when this is happening than we shall surely be forfeit to any mistreatment that comes down from the Government. I worked for almost 20 years to teach some of these ideas to private business, non-profits, military installations and many levels of government from city to state to federal. This blog is part one of the education I think we all need to deal with what I would call “the Search for Truth.” You will need to read all five parts to get an honorary degree in Truth Seeking and Truth Finding. Following is the start of my blog written in 2016
I watched several shows the other day in which Trump supporters were interviewed. People are as curious about his supporters as they are about Trump. Given the unquestionable fact that Trump is a greedy sexist racist hate monger, why would anyone support him? The assumed knowledge is that his supporters are a bunch of ignorant losers: people who are uneducated or at best semi-literate. However, the data and demographics do not entirely support this conclusion. Many Trump supporters are intelligent educated and literate people. These are also people who believe in the United States of America and care about their country. What then persuades or convinces them that Trump is the right person for the job of POTUS? His qualifications pose a questionable proposition that would seem to fly in the face of all known facts in the entire universe. This dilemma strikes at the heart of the matter. We do not know what to believe any more. What is a fact? What is evidence? What is objective data? Where can we find facts that are truthful (not really a redundancy)?
I think about my graduate students at the college where I have taught for many years. These are students who are working on an MBA and are highly literate, highly educated and highly intelligent individuals. Many of them already hold very well paying jobs and responsible positions in successful companies. Nevertheless, the challenge that I continually face is to teach them the difference between facts, data, evidence and truth. Despite their literacy, few of these students understand the difference. This is a scary situation. If these highly educated students do not understand the difference between these concepts, how can we expect the many uneducated members of the general public to understand and comprehend the essential elements of truth finding? I say essential because facts, data and evidence are the three pillars of truth. If you do not have these, you cannot find the truth.
Several problems make the issue even more complex. In academia, we are dealing with a subset of life in which there is much less confusion over the truth since no one is deliberately trying to distort, lie or sell us anything. There may be stupidity, lack of knowledge and even ignorance by many scientists and professors but the greed motive is much less tangible. I am not saying it does not exist, but for most of my teaching career, I cannot think of anything I have ever tried to sell to my students and make a profit on. I can say with some confidence that this is also true of all the instructors whom I have ever known or worked with. The same situation does not exist outside of academia. The marketplace is a vicious jungle when it comes to searching for the truth while academia is a tame zoo in comparison.
When we enter the marketplace and even more so in the political arena, the motive to convince us of something relies much less on elucidating the truth than it does on obfuscating the truth in order to sell us something. Wells Fargo Bank wants you to open a credit account. They don’t care whether you need it or not. Volkswagen wants to sell you a car even if they have to hide the truth about pollution levels. Every politician in America wants you to vote them into office. They don’t want you to know the real truth about their competition or that they do not have all the answers to the problems facing our country.
Companies and politicians have a vested interest in hiding the truth from you. Stories like Miracle on 31st Street where Macy’s sent people to Gimbels are few and far between and exist mostly in fantasy. Similarly, stories about politicians with ethics such as “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” have become legendary because they depict a reality that seldom exists. Most politicians will promise you the moon to get your vote and most companies will not tell you the truth about cigarettes, drugs, food or anything else unless forced to do so by some form of government regulation or mandate. It does not matter whether it will kill you or not as long as you buy it or elect them.
Finally, we come to perhaps the biggest ruse of all. If anyone is searching for the truth, they will eventually enter into the Fourth Estate. This hallowed ground is defined as: “A societal or political force or institution whose influence is not consistently or officially recognized. Fourth Estate most commonly refers to the news media, especially print journalism or The Press.” (Wiki). Thomas Jefferson believed that the two pillars of a democratic society were an educated citizenry and a free press. Mark Twain was somewhat more skeptical about the power of the press and information to inform people when he noted that: “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.” The truth seeker has been taught since early childhood that in the domain of the Fourth Estate is to be found the truth. Little do they know the quagmire they have entered into or that the role of truth finding in the Fourth Estate no longer exists.
Today, the major purpose of the news (whether print or digital or video or audio) is to sell. Sell, sell, sell, sell and sell some more. Sell junk, sell drugs, sell expensive credit cards, sell stuff and more stuff. Stuff you don’t need, won’t need and will probably never need. The job of the media is to convince you that you do need stuff, that you desire stuff and that you can not possibly live without stuff.
I once thought that journalists were a group to be respected. This was based on the knowledge that they had often risked their lives and their reputations to bring us the truth. Today, journalists are little more than pimps for advertisers. They have sold their souls to the devil, descended into hell and may never come out again. The measure of a journalist is not how much information they provide to the public but how many advertisements they can sell. The changing role of journalists has made it even more difficult for people to find the truth. Nothing in the news is remotely objective or unbiased any more. Every paper, every station has their spin on things. The spin is determined by who owns and controls the media.
Take polls for example. As we go into the final days of the 2016 US presidential election, you can find polls that favor one candidate or the other candidate. If there are seventy polls, half may favor one candidate and half may favor the other candidate. There is no truth even in these so called unbiased statistical polls. Many of my friends have suggested that the news media want the race to be close because this keeps people tuned in. Much like a sports match, we would rather watch an event that had a pair of evenly matched contestants. My friends have suggested that the news seems to do its best to insure that first one candidate gets major media attention thus elevating them in the polls and then it switches to the other candidate providing them attention that elevates their poll numbers. I am not a big conspiracy theorist but this theory does seem to have some merit to it.
Regardless of whether the media intentionally want to keep the race close or not, there is no denying that the candidate who is the most obnoxious, the most outrageous and the most sensational will garner the most press. Trump has been well aware of this and has continually manipulated the media into providing him billions of dollars in free advertising. The fickle public seems to swing from one candidate to the other depending on who they see in the news. Trump has undoubtedly benefitted from his ability to keep the press absorbed with his every utterance regardless of how inane they are. He can tweet at 2AM in the morning and be assured that Fox News will carry his tweet on the 7 AM morning news.
How then can we blame the general public, educated or not, of being uninformed or misinformed when most of our society is conspiring against them finding the truth? It is a trap that I have fallen into when I have railed against the stupid, illiterate and uninformed Trump supporters. Sadly, they are not to blame for their reliance on Trump to give them the truth. The have certainly not found it in academia or the Fourth Estate. I have some solutions to this issue but I do not have the entire answer to it. I do have part of the answer. It is quite clear to me that one must understand the difference between facts, data, evidence and the role of these three elements in helping to shape the truth. In Part 2 of this blog, I will go into the subject of Facts in more depth. In the following parts, I will cover Data, Evidence and Truth.
Time for Questions:
How do you know what to believe? Who do you trust to give you unbiased information? How much do you trust the news? Are you satisfied with the quality of the information you get from journalists and the news? What do you think we need to do to improve the quality of information the American public receives?
Life is just beginning.
“There’s a danger in the internet and social media. The notion that information is enough, that more and more information is enough, that you don’t have to think, you just have to get more information – gets very dangerous.” — Edward de Bono
I am working to prepare for a chess match with my neighbor. I happen to note in the paper the Fact that tomorrow will be a quarter moon. Does this Fact have any relevance to my playing chess? I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t really care that there will be a quarter moon. As far as my limited cognition or perception, I can see no relevance between the Fact of a quarter moon and my preparing for my chess match. I could be wrong. We can always mis-perceive the relevance of some information to an issue. This is often done in science and in police work. We don’t see the connection between two issues and we misjudge the outcomes. This provides one good reason for diversity and numbers in problem solving. You have less chance of being blindsided if you have a variety of opinions rather than just your own.
Let us look at another example where the issue of relevance is more salient. I am planning to go on a trip to England in 2017. I want to plan my trip for the best possible time of the year. I hypothesize that two Facts or Data points are very important to my planning. The first is the temperatures at various times of the year in England. The second is the rain fall. I found the ranges for this data on a weather site and used the information to plan my trip. Of course, some of the decisions anyone makes will depend on their own weather preferences. I wanted to minimize rainfall and also keep the temperature in a moderate range. What I call sweater weather. Thus, both these set of factors were relevant and important to my planning. I would call them Evidence to support the time of year that I decided to go.
On the other hand, if you like rain, you might have picked a different time of the year than I did. There were other mitigating factors which played a role in my decision making. These factors included costs for lodging during the year and transportation costs during the year. In general, off season times have better rates but are somewhat the worse for weather. Another factor was the value of the pound to the dollar. I considered the value of the dollar to the pound post Brexit but concluded that I did not have enough information to effectively evaluate the impact of this data on my decision. I am assuming that with the volatility involved in the situation, the value of the dollar might go either way against the pound. My best guess is that I will benefit if I go as soon as possible. The news has recently noted that after Brexit the value of the pound fell 14 percent against the dollar. This would mean I could get a significant cost advantage if I purchase anything in England. I am hoping this situation will continue until after my trip but there are too many variables at play here for me to use this information. I can only hope.
A more common example of relevance can be found by looking at police work. We are all familiar these days with what is called Forensic science. I am sure most of you reading this have watched some police show. As soon as a crime is discovered, the Crime Scene Unit (CSI) is brought in to collect Evidence. Keep in mind that everything at a crime scene is not Evidence. Only what may have a possible relationship to the crime. This can be a real problem. The CSI unit is going to be limited by their assumptions concerning what might be relevant. For instance, I doubt any Crime Scene Investigator will care whether or not the light bulbs are “bright” or “soft white” in the kitchen or bathroom. It is impossible to collect all the “Evidence” of stuff that might be related to the crime. Thus, relying on experience and training, the police investigators do their best to collect Facts and Data that appear to be relevant to the crime. The relevant Data and Facts are not just interesting, they are Evidence. The more they relate to the crime, the stronger the Evidence will be.
An eyewitness can provide Evidence via his/her testimony as to the events of a crime. The relevance of any eyewitness is high but the reliability of an eyewitness can be much lower. Second hand testimony is not as relevant as first hand testimony and is thus weaker Evidence. Testimony that might be compromised by some factors such as police record, bias, discrimination, physical disabilities might be relevant but will be weaker Evidence because the validity of the Evidence is suspect. That is why lab procedures and chain of custody is so important to police work. They may have the most relevant Evidence imaginable but if the validity of the Evidence can be comprimised because of sloppy police work, the Evidence will be useless.
It is seldom that findings of Evidence in police work or business are subjected to as much scrutiny as occurred in the so called development of cold fusion. Perhaps, since this was a finding of great scientific importance, it was held to a more rigorous standard than would occur in many other scientific studies. I am thinking in particular of findings in the health field, nutrition field and drug field. In each of these fields we often have much less rigor before results are posted or accepted. Business is even worse with advertisers spouting outright lies and fabrications. Little known phenomenon are routinely heralded as being highly reliable Evidence of the benefit of some product or service that someone wants to sell you. All kinds of spurious Facts and Data are then marshaled as Evidence to support the phony claims by Madison Avenue advertisers.
When I started working with Process Management International in 1986 after completing my doctorate degree at the University of Minnesota, I met the famous quality improvement expert and renowned statistician, Dr. W. E. Deming. Over the next seven years, he had the most profound influence on my life in terms of helping me to understand process improvement, statistics, quality and the use of Data to improve everything from widgets to health care. Under the influence of Dr. Deming, our company adopted his motto “In God we trust, all others bring Data.” Dr. Deming also said “Without Data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” So what is Data? 
If we understand what Data is, you have now entered the deep forest. However, we have a long way to go before we can get out of the forest. There are numerous obstacles along the way. Referring again to the concepts of validity and reliability, we must ask ourselves the same questions we asked about our Facts. Is our Data reliable and valid? How did we collect the Data? What method did we use to collect the Data? Are we taking a few samples each day for several weeks or are we taking a few samples for only a few days? Are we using a random sample or a stratified random sample? Different methods of collecting Data will lead to different results. And we are not even talking about interpreting the Data yet. For instance, when I worked at W.T. Grants cutting shades back in the late 60’s, I was told to make sure I took my measurements with a metal tape measure and not a cloth or plastic measure. The reason given was that it was easier to stretch a cloth tape measure and get a false result. This would lead to cutting a shade that was too large and would not fit.
Unfortunately, the scientific method is not infallible. It is subject to bias and disagreement over Data and interpretations. Even more problematic is that the scientific method is not a strong method when it comes to testing subjective theories that cannot be verified by Fact. For instance, “Is the Mona Lisa beautiful?” As stated, this is a subjective question that each individual will hold a different opinion on. However, if I asked: “Is the Mona Lisa the most beautiful painting in the world?” I could attempt to answer that question with a bit more objectivity. I could conduct a survey to see what percentage of people think it is the most beautiful. Subjective studies are not as strong as objective studies since they usually lead to results that follow a bell shaped curve. Thus, if we conducted the above survey, we would probably find that a certain percentage of people thought it was the most beautiful painting and a certain percentage did not. As in politics, opinions of beauty would be all over the place. This is why politics is so much more difficult to “Fact check” than issues like the atomic mass of hydrogen. Politics is a very subjective field that resists efforts to test and Fact check. Some examples that would be difficult to test with the scientific method would include:
Finally, if I have left you with some understanding of the difficulty with interpreting Data, I will have felt successful. The first step to knowledge is awareness of our cognitive limitations. We also need to be more skeptical when people present us with Facts and Data. My father used to say “Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see.” I still consider this good advice. There are too many fools and charlatans out there trying to convince us of things for a multitude of reasons that will benefit them and not us. Just as we would not walk down a dark alley in an unknown city by ourselves, we need to exercise caution when presented with Data and Facts. The more we understand the limits of Data and Facts, the more prepared we will be to make decisions based on Data and Facts that have a higher degree of validity and reliability. If the Data, Facts and Evidence that you base your knowledge on are not accurate than everything you think you know will be at best a half truth and at worst a total lie.
“The prosecution had expert witnesses that testified that the Evidence was often mishandled. Photos were taken of critical Evidence without scales in them to aid in measurement taking; items were photographed without being labeled and logged, making it difficult, if not impossible, to link the photos to any specific area of the scene. Separate pieces of Evidence were bagged together instead of separately causing cross-contamination; and wet items were packaged before allowing them to dry, causing critical changes in Evidence.” 
A validity error is when we are not measuring the right thing. IQ tests have been repeatedly criticized for not really measuring the intelligence of a human being or for being biased by many cultural Factors. Thus opponents of IQ tests argue that they are not valid measures of intelligence. A reliability error is when our measures are not consistent. The scale example given above illustrates the problem with reliability. Most people use a scale to weight themselves and most scales have problems with reliability. However, if you tried to equate your weight with your health, you would be assuming that the scale could also measure health and this would be a problem with validity. Scales cannot measure health although health might be correlated to some degree with appropriate height and weight.
Before we move on to looking at the concept of Data, we will look at two more problems with the concept of Facts. These are distortion and bias. Distortion relates to twisting the meaning of something. This can happen by taking something that someone has said out of context. For instance, I might be talking at a conference and say something in sarcasm such as “Yeah, I will definitely vote for Trump.” My words could be repeated verbatim and it would sound like I was endorsing Trump. It is difficult to detect sarcasm. To most people reading or hearing my words second hand, it will sound like I am a strong Trump supporter. Slick politicians and advertisers will often distort a Fact to make it sound like the Fact is supporting their position.
Aging Capriciously 