Today’s world is not my kind of place. I want to live in a
rational world where intelligent women and men debate ideas in a reasoned way
and in which they make decisions based on evidence: scientific evidence,
evaluative evidence, evidence based on analyzing facts and past experiences. A
world where emotions and feelings have a role but they don’t replace knowledge.
Instead, they help us define the goals about what kind of future we want. In my
preferred world, the women and men – all of us – who look at data and think
about how we got here, and which way we should go next and how to get there,
are educated and cultured. They know history and they understand culture.
We will still disagree with each other, as we come from different backgrounds and we have had different experiences that have shaped our worldview. We can disagree on issues of societal importance: Where shall we place our limited resources? What is the right level of government involvement in the economy? How large income differences can we tolerate? How should we punish offenders? How much immigration is good? We can debate all these important policy matters in a civilized manner, and evidence of what actually brings us towards our policy goals will inform our decision-making.
There is no one great truth. Intelligent, thoughtful people can arrive at very different conclusions. Furthermore, the devil is often in the details. The answer is seldom, if ever, all or nothing. For example, in education, as Matthew Yglesias points out on Substack, there are “tradeoffs between cultivating the performance of the strongest students and shoring up the performances of the weakest ones.” The trick here, as in most policy matters, is to calibrate the policies so that they produce an optimal outcome in terms of encouraging the best students to excel without creating excessive inequalities. There are empirical ways of finding that sweet spot.
There, nevertheless, are truths that are fixed: the Earth is not flat; dinosaurs did not roam around with cavemen; gravity causes light to bend; emitting CO2 and methane into the atmosphere warms up global climate. Journalists who present “both sides of the story” in the name of evenhandedness when one side represents an obvious falsehood do a great disservice. People are entitled to their opinions but if someone claims something that is patently false – like, the world was created 5,000 years ago – they are dismissed as a crank. People worship thousands of different gods and an increasing number of us are at the very least agnostic about the existence of even one. Yet, every believer also believes that believing in their god and worshipping him or her exactly the way prescribed by their religion is the only way to heaven, while others are sent to eternal damnation. Going to war or killing each other based on religious differences may be the most irrational thing humans engage in.
Today, identity politics seem to rule. It is somewhat ironic that the origin of identity politics is at the Right end of the spectrum (the white supremacists with their “great replacement theory”), but it has now been owned by the progressive Left – and for them, the identity that overwhelms everything else is race. Well, we know, of course, that the continuum, rather than a straight line, is circular and the opposite ends eventually meet. Humans naturally have multiple identities. I personally don’t think of myself primarily as white or even a man. I am also a father and a husband in a multi-cultural and multi-racial family, a son of my parents (who both have left us), a Finn, a European and an immigrant, speaker of a minority language, a jazz afficionado, an environmentalist, a culinarist, etc. etc. The notion of reducing everything to race (and gender) is plain insulting. Not to mention intellectually lazy, especially in a world where a steadily increasing proportion of people defy simple racial categories. Like my own daughter. Yet, now we see segregation again, this time voluntarily initiated by some colored persons, including at some universities. What would Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. think? His goal was a colorblind society where every human is judged by their character, not by the color of their skin. Or Nelson Mandela who prioritized peaceful coexistence and forgiveness over revenge and mayhem?
The preposterous ”great replacement theory” assumes a wide conspiracy whereby Jews and liberal elites are intentionally promoting immigration (illegal and otherwise) of colored non-Christian people to America and Europe so that whites would become a minority. Conspiracies tend to be generally implausible because they assume that, well, large numbers of people actually conspire towards some nefarious goal – and no-one ever spills the beans. This doesn’t mean that conspiracies are non-existent. But many of the conspiracy theories going around sound like they came from a 1950s B-list horror-movie, like the one about elites actually smuggling children whom they would eat at a secret basement of a pizzeria in Washington, DC (coincidentally, a pizzeria that I and my family have personally frequented). In an election year, there have been congressional efforts to solve the immigration crisis at the southern border of the USA, but a certain group of rightwing representatives has blocked any solution or compromise because they want to use the administration’s inability to deal with illegal immigration as an election trump card (on June 4, President Joe Biden used executive authority to impose new restrictions on illegal immigration). If that’s a conspiracy – and maybe it is – it certainly isn’t a secret one. Cynical it is: to prevent a solution to a problem that ranks high on people’s list of worries just so you can paint your opponent as incapable.
The debate on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic provides another example of the politicization of an issue that should be evidence-based. While both theories of a natural origin and a lab leak are plausible, there is compelling evidence that would point to the latter (the principle of Occam’s razor would strongly favor a lab leak). Yet, in the US congress the issue has become sharply divisive along party lines. Despite scientific evidence, the Democrats flatly refuse even to consider the possibility of a lab leak, apparently fearing that it would further erode trust in the government and the scientific community.
The cynicism of politicians breeds cynicism among regular people. If we are concerned about democracy, we should fight cynicism, which makes people feel that their actions – or voting – have no influence on anything. Cynicism’s sibling, sarcasm, is an unhelpful attempt at humor but it seems to be the dominant form now.
I believe that a key to the gridlock on many fronts would be placing evidence in its rightful place. Evidence comes from a variety of sources and in different shapes. However, it is not evidence just because it’s written in a book that some consider holy. Nor is it evidence if it simply is based on some person’s feelings. We know that in a criminal court, the rules of evidence are stringent. Prosecutors must present the evidence in a systematic way so as to convince the judge and the jury that there is no reasonable doubt of a person’s guilt. The system is not infallible but, as a rule, no single piece of evidence alone is sufficient to convict a person. And when new evidence – or better methods of discovering evidence – is presented, this will be weighed against the previous verdict. This is pretty much how science works as well. Scientists use the best available methods, considering all possible factors and alternative explanations, to home in on the theory that best stands up to scrutiny – convincing the peer reviewers and the broader scientific community is a bit like convincing the jury of your peers – until something comes along that calls for rethinking or refining the theory.
Evaluative evidence equally draws upon multiple sources of information using multiple methods. Some methods – like randomized controlled trials – have been borrowed from medicine but they are by no means the only, or even the best, source of evidence. Apart from quantitative methods, there are qualitative approaches that can be equally rigorous. Participatory approaches engage the claimholders and intended beneficiaries, so that their experiences weigh in on the assessment (again, the experience of a single individual does not constitute evidence and it’s important to recognize that different groups of people may win or lose and have different priorities and expectations in the first place). We need what Michael Quinn Patton has called bricolage, a full set of approaches and methods from which to select the most appropriate for each question to be answered.
One of the founders of the discipline of evaluation, the American psychologist and methodologist Donald T. Campbell (1916-1986) wished for a society that would be guided by evidence. Policies would be developed on the basis of what works, instead of political convictions. This vision may never come to pass – and maybe that’s a good thing, as we do need a healthy debate on the goals that we would like to advance as a society. However, today we seem to be further away from this vision than in a long while. Not only is trust in science and expertise at an extraordinarily low level, we don’t even want to hear any opinion or counterargument that contradicts our deep-seated beliefs. On both the Left and the Right there are efforts to silence, sometimes violently, voices that do not conform with their worldview.
This is a sad state of affairs. Without a reasoned, evidence-based debate society will not be able to advance.
