In Search of Facts, In Search of Truth
Consider this situation. You are in a heated debate with your friend on which country has the best medical services in the world. Both of you are providing facts to support your theories for the country you are vouching for. Initially, both of you provide random facts which are of course not backed by even an ounce of research. Out of the blue, your friend takes out his smartphone and searches on Google one of the absurd facts that you may have provided and proves you wrong by quoting a contradictory statement on some website. Like Sherlock said; “The game is afoot.” Both of you start validating each other’s statements and provide support for your theories from random websites. But how do we exactly reach that information which proves us right?
Why am I even writing an article on the futility of using the Internet to sort out trivial fights? Perhaps the same principles and theories we unknowingly use to justify our arguments are used in a structured way by various agencies to direct how we think and perceive issues and people around us.
Sir Hugh Beaver realized that there is no way to settle arguments about records. This became a cornerstone in the creation of Guinness World Records. However, The Guinness Book of World Records as it was known later, had a specific purpose, to record human achievements and the extremes of the natural world. The Internet on the other hand does not promise anything such. It has a website for the Guinness Book of World Records and also of your friend Barry who blogs about aliens residing in building basements.
So, what are the various methodologies that we use and how are we targeted using the same?
Straight forward facts vs ambiguous statements
It’s very easy to search for anything on the Internet, but very difficult to get a simple straightforward answer. Some queries are easier than others. Who was the first president of the United States? Which teams qualified for the football world cup? Most websites will have the same answers for these types of queries. Facts and to-the-point answers. But how would you try to settle a debate on what were the views of the first president of a particular country about space research? The tables are set, and everyone gives their version of how they perceive Mr. First President. You start searching on the web and go for particular phrases — “President + space”. But if someone is bent on proving that Mr. First President was not keen on space, he would type “Mr. First President + “against” + space”. They will at least find one blog stating the same and show the same to prove their point. The same holds for flat earthers. A search on the Internet on the shape of the earth will provide you with 99.9% of websites that mention that it’s a sphere or potato-shaped. But if someone is bent on settling a debate by proving that the earth is flat and wants to quote a page on the web, they can search “proof that earth is flat” and scroll down to the nth results. Are we being referred to such pages on the web when being persuaded to believe in any ideology or “truth”?
Are we asking the right questions?
Going back to the discussion on which country has the best medical services in the world — is it even a complete question? There can be various parameters against which this query can be answered. If it is the number of doctors, then perhaps a more populous country would be considered the best. If it is the doctor-to-patient ratio, then the dynamics change. If we are considering the number of deaths to a particular disease then we get a different answer, while the ratio of this figure against the population again gives us a different name. Are our questions specific? Points can be proven using parameters that suit our advantage. We can be targeted using the same strategy. So, even if all the sources of information were true (which is more often not the case on the Internet), still results can always be manipulated based on the factors we choose. Next time when someone points to an article and says that Mr. X is the most powerful person of all times, please ask “Against what attributes?”
Source of information
I cannot stress this fact sufficiently. This is perhaps the most important point overall. A website dedicated to medicines and drugs may have more accurate information than a generic content website. But even they would put disclaimers that “you need to speak to a doctor”. And we should. If you are searching for the richest person in the world, perhaps looking into a website like Forbes or at least mentioning the source of a reputed organization while stating the fact would be the right thing to do. There are no definite answers to questions like “Where are the best fireworks on New Year’s eve in the world?” All websites will have their list of top 10, but you cannot rely on anyone’s definite answer. But does that make all other sources of information unimportant? Definitely no. Internet is meant to be a huge repository of information. There is nothing wrong with performing research on varied topics by checking websites, blogs, vlogs, etc. But when it comes to facts, it is of utmost importance that we should quote reliable sources only. If NASA and Barry’s blog tell you contradicting answers on how stars are named, then probably you would go with NASA.
Read news with not just a pinch of salt, but with all the spices available
This is a topic which in itself is a vast topic that could open its can of worms. First comes authenticity. Any news heading that ends with a question mark or mentions that they have come to know from ‘reliable sources’, should perhaps not be quoted. Most news articles have one or two pieces of information that they keep on repeating in active and passive voices. They have a word count to meet. Let’s take another scenario, where you quote a news article from a genuine source. In this case, it is very important to verify that no contradictory news was released after the news you are referring to. For instance, you may be quoting a news article that says a particular sportsman is contemplating retirement, while another one released after a day quotes the same sportsman has asked people to give rest to such rumors. Let’s save ourselves the embarrassment. Have we ever fallen prey to such news articles?
Of course, I am not even touching the tip of the iceberg here. There are various other basic sanity steps that all of us can take when researching on any topic over the Internet. For instance, however compelling it seems, let’s not share any quote, post, or text by any personality unless we have verified that they have said so. Never quote Wikipedia as a source of information. You know that even you can edit it. Your source of information can very rarely be Google unless you refer to particulars provided by the company directly. Google is just a search engine. It would be demeaning to you and me both. It is highly unlikely that the pain in your toe is cancer irrespective of what the self-proclaimed Youtube doctor says. Consult a real doctor or refer to blogs and Youtube channels of genuine known doctors. What is more important is that when going through facts provided by any person or agency which might build or change our perception about any event or person, we need to think once that are these same strategies being used on us?
