Misinformation Is Inevitable in An Increasingly Complex World. We Still Have to Challenge It.

Is Covid-19 real? Are "the numbers" to be trusted? Is hydroxychloroquine a legitimate treatment option? Do masks constitute a useful public health measure? Most readers will have a firm answer to each of these questions, but those answers might be different. What we can all agree on is that the world is full of misinformation, and it's harder than ever to determine what's true and what isn't.

It's easy to blame the current situation on unscrupulous actors or the organizations they represent. For "politicized” issues, blame usually falls on politicians and news organizations from "the other side." The lies come from Republicans or Democrats, Fox News or CNN, Tucker Carlson or Chris Cuomo, Donald Trump or Joe Biden. While these people and entities deserve their share of the blame, the issue largely stems from inevitable social conditions- namely, society's increasing complexity and the massive amount of information out there to be consumed. 

In 1800, the average person could explain more-or-less the entirety of their social universe. They knew how their local economy operated, how all the machines they used functioned, and how their government worked. A well-educated individual was probably conversant with all the latest theories in science, economics, philosophy, and the arts. Society existed on a scale that was more easily grasped. 

Fast forward to 2020...How many of us really understand how the world around us works? We depend on technologies whose secrets elude us. We count on a global economy that we could never begin to understand. Even the most learned of individuals would struggle to explain quantum mechanics, the workings of the internet, and the latest theories of global capital. In a world that none of us fully understands, we rely on networks of experts and the information they disseminate to build our conception of the world. 

In a society where the most self-interested rise to the top, it should come as no surprise that those networks of information have been compromised. We all know we can no longer take information at face value. In the American context, we can't un-see Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. Even younger Americans who don't remember those scandals have absorbed their lessons. From the government to the media, neighbors to local leaders, it seems there's no one in whom we can safely place our trust. 

And yet we have to form a worldview somehow. And we can. It just requires discernment and critical thinking. We have to analyze our news sources, parsing out the self-interested from the benevolent, the mendacious from the truthful. It might not be simple or foolproof, but it's possible. 

Politicians are generally self-interested. We should doubt them. Some news sources lie, others simple deliver truth in a biased way. We should be wary. But there are institutions we can trust, information we should believe. Social progress depends on trust in these organizations. 

Without trust in modern medicine, life expectancy would not have improved. Without trust in accredited, non-partisan news organizations like the Associated Press, we would have no idea what's happening in the world. Without trust in the scientific method and the organizations that use it, we couldn't fly in planes, drive cars, or advance our technologies. 

What we need to practice is qualified trust. We must determine which individuals and organizations can be trusted, and which can't. With this basic, general ground rule, we can develop an understanding of the world that at least somewhat reflects "reality."

So here's my take on the questions from the first paragraph:

Is Covid-19 real? Yes. In this case, I can count on personal experience (friends who have had it and a distant relative who died). 

Are the numbers to be trusted? Yes, because I believe the governmental organizations releasing the numbers to be non-partisan and invested in the truth. I also believe the scientific studies that suggest the actual case counts are probably higher since these studies are conducted by legitimate research institutions. 

Is hydroxychloroquine a legitimate treatment option? No. The advocates of the treatment tend to be self-interested politicians (Trump, Bolsonaro) or rogue doctors with little institutional credibility, while medical professionals have formed a near-consensus against the treatment. 

Do masks constitute a useful public health measure? Yes. This one's a bit more complicated, because many of the organizations I trust initially advocated against masks and have since changed their outlook. All the same, the consensus among public health experts seems nearly unanimous, and so I've adjusted my thinking accordingly. 

I know some readers might not agree with my own conclusions. I get it, and I won't turn nasty in defending my positions. While uncertainty abounds and trust remains low, we need to be mindful of our own discourse. Calling someone ignorant never made the world a better place. We live in unprecedented times, with global airwaves and local communication networks inundated like never before with information (and misinformation) about an increasingly incomprehensible world. Belittling others for their views won't get us anywhere. What we need to do is develop standards to gauge the accuracy of the information we receive, build the truest conception we can of the society we inhabit, and encourage our friends, relatives, and fellow citizens to do the same.