Social media usually strip claims of their evidence. Somehow, Americans must relearn a basic tenet of civil affairs that a claim by itself is insufficient.
In a recent post I noted that in culture that needs to thrive, we need to be sure we are teaching our children the basic tools of critical thinking. They need to know what solid arguments look like. They also need to know the rudiments for judging the credibility of the sources that make them. In open societies these two benchmarks are universal: applying to those who testify in courtrooms as well as the rest of us who want to make compelling claims others will consider. A middle schooler must understand these tests. Virtually no social media forms have the inclination or time to explain complete ideas. So it is no exaggeration to note that the fate of the nation depends upon having these two benchmarks top of mind.
Recognizing Credible Arguments
In any exchange about the ways thing are or the way they should be we assume that some compelling evidence will be offered, especially beyond the empty banter of opinion-giving. A judge would expect evidence that is more than just hearsay, in addition to rejecting truth claims from those not in a position to make them. In all but the most casual settings we it to everyone in the room to do more than make an unsubstantiated claim and call it a day. We hear enough wild and unsubstantiated claims, many passed on by journalists who treat them as viable. But a listener with expectations that ideas should be backed up know that the world is not flat, Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, and our weather is affected by human activity. There is substantial evidence for all of these claims. Truth is still the truth even if an individual does not believe it. And most truths come with clear evidence to anyone who will listen.
An argumentconsidered in isolation can take many forms. But its basic structure is simple and contains at least two parts: (1) An assertion or claim and (2) supporting evidence or good reasons.
That’s it. In its most basic form it is an assertion of fact supported with statements of proof to back it up: perhaps expert testimony, representative examples, solid research, statistical summaries, and so on. The asserted claim is not enough, unless it is so obvious that no one would disagree. But we are focusing here on consequential assertions that others have doubted or denied. Somehow, we must relearn a basic tenet of civil affairs that a claim about an important issue is, by itself, insufficient.
For example, consider the claim that “the 2020 presidential election was free of fraud.” If I stop there in the presence of a MAGA person, I’m uttering a statement that—in formal terms—lacks “force.”
What what makes it true? Where is my evidence? I ought to be able to supply it, and not—as the President does with its counter-argument—by offer a rewording of the claim to make it seem like a reason. So, if I am making a claim, I ought to be able to put “because” after it and find that the reasons that follow will make sense: will sound right. Our example might unfold in the following sequence.
Claim: “The Election was free of fraud.”
(Because. . .)1
The Attorney General in the Trump Administration said so.
The administration’s cyber-security head said so.
III. No state government found evidence of significant instances of fraud.
Virtually all respected journalists covering the election found no significant evidence of a corrupted vote.
A vast array of American courts couldn’t even find enough evidence to proceed to a trial.
Arguments work best with truth claims. What can you do with your Uncle Fred’s assertion that he “believes” many dead Democrats “voted?” You can ask him for evidence. But Fred may use the intellectual slight-of-hand of grammatically converting what he “believes” into what he “knows:” perhaps that “slaves benefited from their enslavement” or “most federal prosecutors are communists.” That’s dishonest because these kinds of claims affirm what can easily be denied, even if telling him so probably will not keep him up at nights. People uttering belief statements are best left to their magical thinking, but only after you point out that they have sometimes made an elemental error of reasoning.
Recognizing Credible Sources
All evidence in an argument is testimony of one kind or another. Details in support of a claim have to come from someone. And that individual or group must meet some elemental standards of credibility. In general a credible source is (1) in a position to know, and (2) able to render evidence that comes without an overriding bias. For example, I can claim that Russia is behind many instances of computer sabotage in the United States. But I don’t know that. I haven’t researched the evidence I would expect to find. Add in Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and I have a heavy bias against the Russian regime. In short, my opinion is not worth as much without convincing evidence.
Let’s add one more twist that any student must learn. Sources can be labeled “willing” or “reluctant.” Willing sources are those who offer statements that conform to their biases. Reluctant sources offer statements that tend to be contrary to their own views. This sometimes happens, and is the gold standard for taking a source seriously. An example dealing with the 2020 election could be include Attorney General William Barr’s own words, made in point “A” in the above outline: “To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” As testimony, Barr’s words are especially credible because he is affirming what would have been easier for a member of the Trump administration to deny. We wouldn’t expect him to say make the statement unless it was probably true.
These are all elemental components of critical thinking. They are not difficult to learn and apply. More than ever, we need these components to be taught and retaught.
____________________________
1 This is one of the secret sauces of practical reasoning. If you can put "because" between a genuine claim and the good reasons that you have for it (A, B, etc.), the whole completed thought should make sense. Your life experience should flag a "reason" that simply does not follow after stating the claim. This "does not follow" test is not an infallible guide, but it is pretty reliable. If Uncle Fred asserts that "The U.S. is a Christian nation," add "because" for the reasons he may offer. There are roughly 100 million Americans that identify with a belief tradition other than Christianity. So claims for this identifying label are not likely to sound right or make sense. He's entitled to his belief, but it cannot be easily substantiated with corollary claims.
[The nation is in the midst of a continuing crisis of distraction that is weakening the habit of consuming reliable journalism].
AT Image
If we want to understand how far our civil life has drifted of course we can look to what has happened to the “Fourth Estate.” That phrase was coined by a British parliamentarian Edmund Burke and adapted by American writers to describe one of the essential parts of any democracy. A free press is what Americans now understand as the fourth addition to the three formal branches of government (Congress, the presidency and the courts). Together they work as checks on each other: a fact that is well illustrated in the First Amendment, guaranteeing a free press. Interestingly, the practice of journalism is the only profession singled out for protection in the Constitution.
We have drifted into uncharted territory when the press is no longer able to function as our eyes and ears tuned to the other three branches. I’m repeating an obvious but vital warning: the nation is adrift because we are losing the compass of the Fourth Estate. The problem is not primarily the fault of news organizations, but with those of us who no longer feel motivated to make room for the news media. The nation cannot function without a vital press and motivated news readers. Video news helps, but it tends to shun ideas in favor of action. We need the longer view that a text-rich medium more naturally provides.
Pew Research Center
The decline of the American newspaper now has its own history. Independent owners have nearly disappeared as big city papers have closed or been bought up by chains. It can be hard to find a newspaper to buy in a big city. And the papers that remain have dramatically reduced their reporting staffs. It’s also an obvious fact of modern life that younger Americans mostly consume news in fragments, having been given the endless distractions of social media. There is great reporting that remains, but the outlets producing need-to-know stories are on a shrinking list of outlets unknown to a growing portion of the population.
We can count ourselves fortunate to still have organizations like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal. Ditto for opinion outlets like The Atlantic and The Economist. And The Associated Press still provides on site coverage of major political developments that remaining news organizations still use. But it seems that fewer media managers want straight reporting, opting for the creation of reality-based fantasies like those favored by Fox News and Newsmax. The differences between reporting and opinion-giving haven’t changed. Real reporters depend on facts and accounts of the observable to shape their journalism. News polemicists are freer to let their imaginations shape their conclusions. Calvin Trillin recalls that old-line reporters would call these self-satisfied pieces “thumb suckers.” And, of course, facts alone can be selectively chosen or ignored. But we better start teaching young news consumers the critical tools needed to weigh claims and evidence. (What that unit of education might look like is taken up in the next blog.) The current pattern of catching passing glimpses of national events on platforms like TicTok and Facebook will doom us low levels of understanding that will cripple our capacity for self-government.
“Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff.”
This grim view of the future of quality journalism was brought home in the last few weeks by the resignation of Editor Sally Buzbee at the Washington Post. Prior to her decision she refused to pull an article that mentioned the Post’s publisher, Will Lewis, as among those allegedly involved in a scheme years ago to hack into the private communications of Prince Harry and other royals. At the same time, Lewis reminded observers of his roots in the sometimes shabby standards of British journalism by trying to kill that bit of news as it was being prepared by NPR’s media reporter. The quid-pro-quo for not running the story would be an exclusive interview with the radio network. Lewis was brought on by owner Jeff Bezos to turn around falling circulation figures: a fact brought home to staffers in an early meeting. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years,” the new arrival declared. “People are not reading your stuff.”
The Post remains one of the great American news outlets. It is disheartening it should be in so public a feud, and doubly so if the root cause is declining circulation numbers. Less scrupulous news-creation techniques of some popular forms of the press are no cure for the underlying problem of declining public interest. Will we be able to sustain a vigorous fourth branch of government when the other three legs of our civil life are so wobbly?
Before he passed away this month, political reporter Howard Fineman worked at many “legacy” news organizations like Newsweek. But he also added a sober observation about their tenuous status. “We are in what I view as a new global world war for control of the search for the truth,” he noted. “We have to mobilize our truth-seeking strength . . . for America and democracy to survive.”
