Reasoning over Conflicting Sources

A recent article in my Facebook feed proclaimed "Australia's Great Barrier Reef is Dead" Shocked by this assertion, I clicked the link, and was immediately relieved when I saw the webpage layout - it screamed "unreliable", with its wacky headlines and outrages click-bait ads. Hopeful, I opened a new tab to a search engine and entered the relevant keywords. Hundreds of results appeared, from which I selected one with a headline that opposed the bleak news of the first article, and a second that implied the reef isn't even in much (if any) danger.

Before even reading the articles, I created a new Facebook post and added each of the stories as a comment. There they were in all their contradictory glory.

Great Barrier Reef: Unesco opts against 'in danger' status
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-40515367
Great Barrier Reef dead at 25 million
http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/the-great-barrier-reef-is-dead-at-25-million-years-old/
The Great Barrier Reef is not actually dead
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/us/barrier-reef-obit-trnd/index.html

Dead! Not Dead! Not even in Danger! What am I to think?

I began clicking between the tabs that contained these stories, scanning and searching the pages looking for relevant connections, contradictions, motives, and reasons that the same bit of underwater countryside could have such a variety of prognoses, when a BEEP! brought my attention back to Facebook. A friend had commented:

This is one of those things where people don't actually get to decide. Saying the reef is dead doesn't make it so, and saying it's not doesn't revive it. The reef is as it is. You can look at it and see its condition for yourself. This doesn't make the reef's status an "independent reality," because it is still intimately connected with us through space, time, and perception, but it does mean that there are two matters: the reef, and our opinions about it. It's always helpful to keep the two separate.

Shazam! He's right. we have to separate these from each other:

"what is so" (the reef)
"what we believe is so" (our opinions about it).

Excited by this revelation, I rushed here, to my blog, and began typing furiously. Wisdom poured from my fingertips!

"The vast majority of the information we receive from mass media and the internet are going to be prohibitively difficult to verify in person, even should we have the knowledge, skills, time, and money to do so..." I explained.

"We need to discover a new way of, even if not absolutely verifying facts, at least verifying that what's reported can be convincingly reasoned to be believable!"

The prose was delectable. The enlightenment, how it shined from my screen into my own eyes! But still, something was wrong. It wasn't cohesive; it didn't tie points together. Maybe it needed more than this one set of conflicting stories.

Left is Left and Right is Right

I went to chat for inspiration. Surely I'd find that chatters debating issues will find varying information sets and perhaps gain some insight into how to validate one or the other, or at least explain the divergence in the two. I can tell you, it didn't take long.

<InformationDude> china runs on like 90% coal
<LiberalSnowOp> China is roughly 66% coal
<LiberalSnowOp> Which is an enormous amount. But it's not 90%

"Yes! Here's my chance," I thought. "Now we'll see what their sources are really made of."

<Sanguine> Could each of you post a link to references?

To my surprise, they both responded within seconds.

<LiberalSnowOp> Sanguine: https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/analysis.cfm?iso=CHN
<HalTheEvilBot> Title: China - International - Analysis - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
<InformationDude> https://www.statista.com/statistics/265612/primary-energy-consumption-in-china-by-fuel-type-in-oil-equivalent/
<HalTheEvilBot> Title: • China - primary energy consumption by fuel (in oil equivalent) 2016 | Statistic
<InformationDude> not quite 90%, it was off the cuff

Of course, arguments and attacks soon follow. Fortunately, snowop has an impressive reply.

<FaultObserver> <InformationDude> china runs on like 90% coal
<FaultObserver> "Runs on" = consumption
<InformationDude> yea that was off the cuff, i addressed that
<InformationDude> we found the real number and its BAD

<DisruptiveAttacker> it's just another one of InformationDude easily disprovable lies that we're going to spend the next hour arguing about

<DisruptiveAttacker> LiberalSnowOp: have you ever thought if InformationDude adds enough value to this channel to keep him around?

<LiberalSnowOp> We're not discussing that

My first attempt at responding was poor, but might have set the stage for what comes later (if it was noticed at all)...

<Sanguine> DisruptiveAttacker: he just rectified it. are you not watching?
<DisruptiveAttacker> InformationDude: are you still trying to say that it runs on 90% coal or are you revising your estimate down but higher than what LiberalSnowOp said and linked to?
<InformationDude> i dont refute the charts posted
<InformationDude> i was guessing at 90%
<InformationDude> wasnt far off either
<DisruptiveAttacker> well, 66% vs 90% is quite far
<DisruptiveAttacker> InformationDude: so you were wrong?
<InformationDude> 24%
<InformationDude> not bad margin for a guess

DisruptiveAttacker very gracefully responded to my final comment and even stopped disruptively attacking:

<Sanguine> be that as it may (bad guess margin) the issue now becomes DisruptiveAttacker disrupting
<DisruptiveAttacker> Sanguine: sorry for being disruptive

Of course, the conversation soon descended again into attacks and howling on a different subject. I suspect that could be attributed to habit, really, though I can't say for sure.

The price of coal in China?

The point of this post has little to do with either Chinese Coal or the deterioration of Natural Wonders. Rather, it's all about how our use, misuse, and guessing about information sources in our conversation can contribute to disruption and a failure to find understanding. It's lax, it's lazy, and I know this because it's my habit as much as anyone's. I've seen myself fall into this frenzy of trying to win (or even just stay afloat in) an argument. In conversation - especially in a crowded chat room where everyone wants to get in his two bits - there's a feeling of urgency. In such situations, I (and I suspect many others) often grab facts or numbers from what seems to be memory and toss them right out into the world as truth.

Maybe this method isn't so bad if you're in it for entertainment - just a way to enjoy passing the time - but politics figures strongly in forming the reality in which we live. It's time I begin to look for a more serious approach - to consider my arguments before making them, and to back them up with reference links even before being asked. This I resolve to do, and to commemorate the resolution I've deleted my original text on the matter and have rewritten this post in it's current form.

Further, I'm going to open those articles about the Barrier Reef and read each from start to finish... right after my nap.

Rational Politics - Snoonet

Saturday, July 15, 2017