I'm not a fan of the term ‘fake news’. Simply saying those two words is a means for the biased to dismiss information inconsistent with their own views. In this context, it is a tool for the antithesis of critical thinking. However, I know many also use it like a slang term for misinformation. Perhaps it’s actually a helpful and useful tool for making the concepts regarding misinformation more accessible to larger populations. In fact, following my recent piece on integrating critical thinking into writing, I was asked to write a piece on ‘not presenting fake news’, which is subtly different, but in important ways. In thinking about ‘not presenting fake news’, I began to see the potential value of the term; and so, I present five steps to ‘not presenting fake news’:
1. Write your definitions.
Though I generally don’t like to base decisions on my experience (given that a sample size of one is generally meaningless), it has been my experience that, through observation and evaluation, many arguments between individuals result from a lack of consistency between their definitions of key terminology. For example, in one of my Critical Thinking classes, I have an exercise on structuring argumentation, in which the word ‘efficiency’ is presented in one of the propositions. After some discussion, I ask them to define the term. Sometimes I get 2 or 3 similar definitions; but, more often than not, distinct concepts are presented across the class. Imagine arguing with someone over how best to enhance ‘efficiency’ in your workplace and then finding out later that you define it in different ways. It’d be frustrating to learn that you’ve been arguing over different things! So, be it in written or spoken format, make sure to first define key terminology in order to ensure clarity over what is actually meant within your argument.
2. Explain why the argument is important.
It’s not uncommon to hear of people being referred to as ‘someone who argues just for the sake of it’. Sometimes, it might refer to someone who is used to Playing Devil’s Advocate or applying the Socratic Method. But generally, these tools are used by someone questioning an argument, rather than the individual making it (though these are useful strategies for evaluating one’s own argument). In terms of the person making the argument, it would certainly seem like a waste of time (and a source of decision fatigue and cognitive load) making the argument simply for the sake of it. It must be important, in some way, to warrant discussion. This importance and, likewise, the purpose of this argument should be clear and transparent from as early in the argument as possible. The importance grabs the audience’s attention, while clarity and transparency maintain it. In this world of ‘fake news’, transparency cannot be viewed as potential for weakness, rather strength in credibility. To help address these issues, simply–and honestly–ask yourself: What is this argument’s purpose? Why is it important? Why do I want others to believe it?
3. Do your research
…And by ‘do your research’, I don’t mean the classic response by online conspiracy theorists. I mean actual research. As I mentioned in my recent piece, 7 Tips for Integrating Critical Thinking into your Writing, knowledge can be gained from family, friends or life experiences; but, they have no real place in critically thought out writing. As a result, you must search for credible information (Google Scholar is a good resource for finding credible peer-reviewed journal articles). Furthermore, avoid seeking out information that simply supports your existing point of view – don’t feed into confirmation bias. This bias again brings to light the importance of Playing Devil’s Advocate, which can be used to overcome confirmation bias through considering both (or, if more than two, all) sides of the story. It can also help you be honest with yourself about: what information is the strongest and comes from the most credible sources; which are most relevant to the specificity of not only the topic but the central claim itself; which are the most logical; and which are the most successful at avoiding bias. Remember, we are cognitively lazy–we don’t like changing our knowledge (schema) structures and how we think about things; so, we need to be extra diligent in evaluating our position.
4. Report the results of your research.
The problem with critical thinking in social media is that quite often, it just doesn’t exist. Be they conspiracy theorists, social justice warriors or science deniers, people fall prey to posting and sharing their values without any critical thought behind it. Whether it’s posted based on emotion, misinformation or some bastardized view of ‘research’ (e.g. 'googling' a topic and confirmation-biased cherry-picking only ‘perspectives’ that support their view), if the individual values it enough, it will be posted. Thus, despite the song and dance, we can’t assume that someone else’s findings are a product of critical thinking. Again though, you need to be diligent in evaluating others findings as well as your own. Make sure you do what you would like to see from others – practice what you preach; and make sure the findings you present are a result of critical thinking-infused research!
5. Conclude with Caution
Similar to Step 4, make sure that the conclusions you reach/propose are a result of critical thinking-infused research! Moreover, conducting research through critical thinking also includes a certain level of epistemology (i.e. the theory and understanding of the nature of knowledge). Specifically, in critical thinking, we must acknowledge the limits, certainty and nature of knowledge. We can never be 100% certain of the conclusions derived from informal logic, much like we cannot ‘prove’ anything (see The Dirtiest Word in Critical Thinking). Furthermore, knowledge can change, not in the way certain users of the term ‘fake news’ might mean or those who think of knowledge as being subjective; I mean in terms of changing as a result of advances in research. For example, many of us grew up with the knowledge of our solar system having nine planets and now, thanks to advances in research, we have eight! As knowledge can change (e.g. as a result of newer, improved research) and because we cannot prove our conclusions, we need to be cautious in the manner we present them. That’s why it’s important to present conclusions like, ‘x may enhance y’; or ‘research suggests or indicates that x increases/decreases y’. Even if all the research points in one direction, be sure to exercise caution!