Not Enough Time Continued: Finding Good Analysis

As mentioned yesterday, accurate information seems readily available, but there is still the problem of taking the time to gather it all together (since the needed information may be spread across many days or from many different sources) and doing an accurate analysis. Clearly, it would be nice if there were people we could rely on to do this for us on topics which we do not have the time to become experts on.

One common approach (not recommended) is to simply find analysts who agree with our preconceived notions and listen to them. However, this violates the basic principle of science in that we want to correct our mistakes, not reinforce them. A somewhat better method is to find out what the most popular opinion is and go along with that. The problem with this is that it does not take into account that new ideas (which may be much better than the old ones) are almost always unpopular at first. Unpleasant truths also tend to be unpopular, which does not make them any less correct. A better approach is to listen to many analysts and find out which ones are the least biased and the most scientific in their analysis.

How do we determine the trustworthiness of a source? First, do they cite facts to back up their judgments? Without complete information, the best logic in the world is pretty much worthless. Do they look at facts which seem to contradict their analysis and address them reasonably (unemotionally)? This is the all-important error checking part of science. Unless there is evidence that they are doing this, it is likely that they are not truly correcting their errors.

Another check one can do is to see if the analyst has a vested interest in the point of view he is espousing. If this is the case, he is unlikely to be able to deal fairly with the opposing point of view. Again, most politician fall into this category. Since they have taken a stand with one party or the other, it becomes virtually impossible to admit when the other side has a valid point.
Another indication which is often useful is if the analyst admits that the opposing points of view have some validity. Most issues we have to deal with in our daily lives are complex and have no single cause or solution. An analyst who oversimplifies a complex issue to try to justify his view is not to be trusted. This is not always the case, however. Take evolution versus intelligent design for example. In this case, there really is no substance to most of the ID arguments. Also note the way scientists regularly address ID claims in a detailed and factual way as mentioned above as a necessity for doing a good analysis. It is not that common, but there truly are situations where there is a right and wrong side to an argument.