Evidence and time

that little device for creating a persuasive argument

I saw references this morning about senior U.S. and PLA generals meeting in the near term. Some lauded this as a minor breakthrough while others asked whether it was the beginning of a thaw in bilateral military relations. I suspect others probably consider it a false dawn. I provide a link to one such headline.

It may well be all three as our constant need for news in a single line provides only a thought at a particular moment in time. Most headlines are not the gripping 9/11 or Nixon-resigns transformations that one reading of the individual story implies. Actually, headlines are the same as individual days in our lives: what generally matters most is how they play out in as movie rather than in a snapshot fashion. Put otherwise, habits matter in eating patterns far more than those blonde brownies our friends had with dinner last night as we stuck to raspberry sorbet. We are all probably going to do pretty well as last night was a single point in time (though perhaps worthy of a headline from what they said about the blonde brownie).

This matters because in today’s world where both our electronic devices and the information provided on those easily accessible-but-rarely-far-away news sources are such constants in our daily lives. It’s seductive to assume that the headlines are the sum of the news when they often merely point us to stories likely (or not) to develop into something meaningful.

Because too many of us (notice I include myself) are too distracted to track all of the information on a topic, we get frustrated when we cite a previously read notice, only to find something contradictory several days or months later. This seems to happen particularly with health news where we really prefer “one and done” but life doesn’t seem to agree.

I think this particularly pernicious with health care where we prefer “one and done” thus don’t feel comfortable exploring the validity, size, scope, and research question of almost all stories when they appear. Instead of getting a full understanding of what a researcher really found about eating chocolate fifteen times a day, we like the headline that chocolate is healthier than we thought. Well, in American fashion, then let’s have much more of it as more is always better, isn’t it?

The relevance of this action and consequences is its part in the deepening distrust of what we see online. Here is the irony, however: we seem to quote things online all of the time (Or perhaps I am telling a story on myself as the sole person who does this but I suspect not) at the same time we hate the media, we hate online sources, and so forth.

This entire system is also manifestation of our attrophed skills in the art of argumentation. As far back as undergraduate teaching at Ithaca College or Loyola of Chicago in the 80s, I used to threaten to make a stamp with the word “EVIDENCE?” to use on their foreheads. Somewhere in high school or English 101 in college, someone eliminated the subject of explaining how one makes a persuasive argument. At least that was what I found when I got essays with exquisite assertions and nada in the evidence column. Only my truly strong students knew how to craft and support an argument, a shocking state of affairs for someone in college.

Danger, Will Robinson, DANGER! (if you watched sci fi in the 1960s, you get it)

Single points of evidence may be important but not necessarily conclusive or determinative. When we hear someone describe an event such as “Top Chinese general to visit US as militaries step up engagement”, pay attention to how that plays out. Do multiple sources corroborate the assumption this means things will improve? You’ll have to watch the story for a while.

Does the headline even match what the story says? Often these days, the headline writers union of newspapers and online sources doesn’t seem to communicate withe the detail union of newspapers and online sources, as if they were in opposite camps rather than a most often a single reporter writing a somewhat garbled piece—without implied evidence much of the time. Back to writing: does the first paragraph of a story link to the final one? Always the clue I cited to students for assuring they had a disaster on their hands when the answer was well, no, there is not link.

In other words, we all need pay a bit more attention to the details. It’s more time consuming, often reveals contradictions (oh, my), and can be frustrating but is a significant step towards learning to hold the much criticized press (and online sources) accountable while similarly giving you and me the reader a fuller understanding of a topic.

If we all did that more often, we would hold politicians accountable. Now that might make a difference as actions create consequences. It might make us dubious of those around us as well, particularly if they held us accountable in due course.

I don’t know whether we are seeing a major thaw in PLA-US military relations. Could be but lots of things seem to crop up to prevent that as the distrust on both sides is as deep as I have seen it. Each side has its politics and interests, often in contradiction. And we can never forget the People’s Liberation Army is an arm of the Chinese Communist Party rather than women and men who take an oath to their constitution. Time will tell, to be trite but accurate.

Thank you for your time today and every day you spend with Actions. I appreciate each of you but especially those who support this newsletter financially. Please feel free to circulate this to others if you find it valuable.

Be well and be safe. FIN

“Top Chinese general to visit US as militaries step up engagement“, Financial Times, 12 September 2024, retrieved at https://www.ft.com/content/52adec25-51a6-4634-8439-50f1cc13792f