I frequently encounter people who demand that I "just do some research" on a given topic, as though it will necessarily lead me to agree with their conclusions. I have researched many such claims. Some led me to eventually change my mind. Most did not. Often, further research merely persuaded me to entrench my position.
There are several potential outcomes to honest research and debate. Emotions run high, and we all tend to be so wedded to our beliefs that a dispute feels like a personal attack. I would like to examine potential outcomes to honest discussion, considered debate, and serious research. Just be prepared. Some of my examples may rustle your jimmies.
Read on, and feel free to air your grievances against me in the comments below.
I did my research. You're nuts.
When I examine a claim only to find that it completely mischaracterizes the idea it opposes, and fails to provide any kind of explanations of its own, I must reject it. This is doubly so when the other side's position is thoroughly explained, evidence to support their claim is provided, the objections are deconstructed, and accurate predictions are made based on their models.
Flat Earth "Theory" is my best example of this. I have seen no evidence for a flat earth that can withstand serious scrutiny.
False etymologies also tend to earn this response. Some are intended humorously, of course, like politics allegedly combining poly (many) and ticks (blood-sucking parasites). But others seem incredibly serious about origins that may misrepresent the origin or be completely fictitious.
I did my research, and remain unconvinced.
It is comforting to declare something true or false. Unfortunately, this is often difficult, and we need to be willing to live with some level of uncertainly. Perhaps more research is needed. Perhaps evidence is inconclusive.
I am not convinced Sasquatch exists as I type this post from the comfort of my own home. There is a lot of speculation, but a distinct dearth of proof. But honestly, if I were camping in the remote mountains, I might be open to the possibility something unknown might well be out there. I am also fascinated by the Oak Island Treasure. I do not think anything significant is there to be found. But there are enough anecdotal oddities to make me wonder what if... in each case.
I am sure this sculpture exists, at least.Image credit
More seriously, there is currently a lot of uproar online over 5G cell towers. Radio waves are not ionizing radiation, so most claims of radiation danger fall into the category of, you're nuts. However, I also acknowledge that some credible people are also questioning whether RF emissions at high frequencies may have deleterious effects. Further, WiFi has been used experimentally for surveillance, and the NSA PRISM program is an affront to liberty. Is 5G technology designed specifically to enhance such surveillance? I have my doubts, but cannot dismiss all such concerns entirely.
Neutrality.
This is my default position on many matters. As the sphere of human knowledge has expanded, we need specialized knowledge in more fields. Is evaluating a claim a good use of my scarce time? Often not, and the more hysterical the demand, the more my instinct is to dismiss it when the complaint seems to reflect an ignorance equal to my own.
Is this wise or foolish?
Perhaps we would all be better off if we acknowledged the limits of our individual understanding, took all claims with a grain of salt, and took a moment for reflection before deciding whether we needed to take a side at all. But perhaps it takes someone from outside the echo chamber to ask the important questions sometimes, too
I did my research, and your claim has merit.
This does not mean acceptance of a claim, just acknowledgement of plausibility based on current understanding.
I remain skeptical of the September 11th, 2001 narratives regarding the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. I have my doubts about aspects of the official story, but most of the counterarguments fall into the previous categories. Still, there are a few that make me go hmmm... and spark sufficient doubt that I cannot dismiss them, either.
I did my research, and my conclusions differ from yours.
Based on my experience, this is where the worst conflicts occur. We can examine the same data, and agree to the validity of the data, but disagree completely about proper analysis and which conclusions should be drawn.
I know people who look at the various conflicts in the middle east, and conclude that the US needs to take sides and pursue even more military intervention, while I conclude involvement is counterproductive no matter the intention and strategy.
I agree with the communists that there is massive economic inequality, and the political system is built on oppression of the working man. I disagree almost entirely with their analytical methods, class structure theory, and prescription to address the problem, though.
The SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus is real to the best of my knowledge, and COVID-19 can be fatal, especially to the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. I agree that there are occasional people outside those high-risk groups who have died, and will die, with no known comorbidities. However, the data I have seen suggests government reactions around the world are not based on protective stewardship of their populations, but the rather the politician's syllogism. Even if the epidemiologists advising these officials are entirely correct, they are still completely blind to the economic and psychological consequences of their policy advice.
As people throw statistics and predictions around online, all nuance is lost. When we are given a false choice of obedience or death, or if dissent is dismissed as callous disregard for the lives of others, I become suspicious immediately.
I did my research, and I agree with you.
This is a rare outcome for any dispute, especially online. Nonetheless, my current economic and political philosophy is a result of people challenging me in online discussions.
Consequently, I am persuaded that the Austrian School is broadly correct in economic analysis. I also embrace individualist anarchism now, and reject the nationalist jingoism of the right wing as well as the social justice arguments of the modern left.
I had nagging questions come up over time, and the search for answers led me to explore many alternative explanations. My research led me down many dead ends and several circuitous paths. I had to wrestle with my prejudices and preconceptions. The honest pursuit of answers and serious research led me to where I am now.
Conclusions?
Social media is not designed for serious discussion. Blog platforms like HIVE are more suited to long-form discussion and debate, but the echo chamber effect still exists, and the internet is awash in options for confirmation bias. Facebook and Twitter are far worse in this regard. This is no way to achieve intellectual progress.
I suggest applying a measure of humility when discussing most contentious topics, even most outlandish-sounding conspiracy theories. Just apply some basic principles of critical thinking. The number of Facebook likes, Youtube video votes, rally attendees, or poll respondents is irrelevant. Truth is not determined by democracy. Learn how to weigh new information, and remain open to changing your position when it is warranted.
Could I still be wrong? It's always a possibility. Just don't assume I am ignorant if I disagree, or assume that dissent is rooted in meanness. We all need to accept that people may draw completely different conclusions from the same pool of facts, and practice addressing their reasoning instead of attacking their character. Do not dismiss people as Nazis unless they are literal Nazis, OK?