Evaluating Evidence: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #6

Summary

In this Crash Course episode, John Green emphasizes the importance of evaluating evidence when navigating digital information. He illustrates how relying on 'because I said so' is insufficient for adults and discusses the necessity of solid evidence to support claims. Green uses examples like a viral Facebook hoax and a snowball in the Senate to highlight the difference between relevant and misleading evidence. He stresses that not all evidence is equal and encourages viewers to question the credibility and relevance of the information they encounter online.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video emphasizes that as we grow older, the 'because I said so' approach doesn't suffice and evidence is required to support claims.
• 🔍 It's crucial to evaluate online information by looking for reliable sources that provide convincing evidence for their claims.
• 🤔 The credibility of a source's claims is dependent on the evidence provided, and evidence can come in various forms like text, photos, videos, and data.
• 🚫 A lack of evidence should raise suspicion, as it leaves no basis for verifying the truth of a claim.
• 🕷️ The video uses the example of a viral Facebook post about a deadly spider to illustrate how the absence of evidence can indicate misinformation.
• 🌍 The script points out that not all evidence is equal; it should come from reliable sources and be relevant to the claim being made.
• ❄️ An example of poor evidence is a snowball used to disprove global warming, showing that weather and climate are different concepts.
• 👟 The video discusses how irrelevant or spurious evidence, like the correlation between ankle boots and conspiracy theories, doesn't support the claims it's attached to.
• 🌙 It highlights the importance of lateral reading and cross-referencing information, using the moon landing conspiracy theory as an example.
• 📊 The script warns against spurious correlations, such as the incorrect link between vaccines and autism, which can have serious real-world consequences.

Q & A

Why does John Green say 'Because I said so' no longer works as a reason as you grow older?

As people grow older, they need evidence and convincing arguments to believe a claim. 'Because I said so' is no longer effective because mature individuals require logical reasoning, especially in complex situations such as negotiating a raise at work.

Why is evidence important when evaluating online information?

Evidence is crucial because it provides proof that a claim is factual. Without evidence, there is no reason to believe a claim is true, making it difficult to discern reliable information from misinformation or disinformation.

What are some forms of evidence that can be used to support a claim?

Evidence can include text, photos, videos, data, or any other material that supports a claim and gives a reason to believe it is true.

What does John Green use Nathan Fielder’s tweet as an example of?

Nathan Fielder’s tweet is used to show how evidence can fail to support a claim. In the tweet, Nathan claims to be having a great time with friends, but the photo only shows him alone, making the claim unconvincing.

What should make you suspicious of an online post with no evidence?

When a post provides no evidence to back up its claims, such as not linking to news stories or offering verifiable facts, you should be suspicious because there is no proof that the claim is true.

How was the hoax about the 'deadly spider' debunked?

The hoax was debunked by fact-checkers like Snopes.com, who found no deaths related to the spider and confirmed that the original poster had a history of spreading hoaxes. The lack of evidence in the post itself was a key sign that it was false.

Why does John Green argue that not all evidence is created equal?

Not all evidence is equally reliable or relevant. Evidence needs to come from credible sources, and it must directly support the claim being made. Using weak or irrelevant evidence can lead to misinformation.

What is an example of irrelevant evidence mentioned in the script?

An example of irrelevant evidence is someone arguing that e-cigarettes are safe for kids because they help people quit smoking. While quitting smoking is relevant to adults, it has no bearing on whether e-cigarettes are safe for children.

What is a spurious correlation, and how can it mislead people?

A spurious correlation is when two unrelated events are mistakenly linked as if one causes the other. For example, there is a correlation between Nicolas Cage movies and drowning deaths, but this doesn't mean that his movies cause drowning.

What impact has misinformation about vaccines and autism had on public health?

Misinformation falsely linking vaccines to autism has led to a decrease in vaccination rates, which in turn contributed to outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles in 2018.

Outlines

00:00

🔍 Evaluating Evidence in Digital Information

The paragraph introduces the importance of evaluating evidence when navigating digital information. John Green uses the analogy of parental authority to explain how 'because I said so' is insufficient as evidence in adult conversations. He emphasizes that as we grow older, we need convincing evidence to support claims, whether in the workplace or online. The script discusses how to discern good evidence from bad, and the necessity of looking beyond the source to the evidence itself. It highlights that evidence should be solid and convincing, and that often online information lacks this. The paragraph also touches on the role of evidence in supporting factual claims and the ease with which misinformation can spread on the internet without proper evidence.

05:03

🕷️ Debunking Fake News with Evidence

This paragraph delves into the process of fact-checking and the role of evidence in debunking false claims. It uses the example of a viral Facebook post about a deadly spider spreading across the USA, which was later debunked by Snopes.com. The paragraph highlights the lack of evidence in the original post and how fact-checkers looked for corroborating evidence from reputable sources to confirm the claim was false. It also discusses how evidence should be evaluated for its relevance and reliability, using examples such as a snowball used to disprove global warming and a conspiracy theory about a global pedophile ring based on spurious connections. The importance of lateral reading and cross-referencing information is stressed to ensure the evidence provided is credible and supports the claim being made.

10:04

🚭 The Danger of Irrelevant Evidence in Online Claims

The final paragraph focuses on the pitfalls of using irrelevant evidence to support claims, which can mislead and create confusion. It illustrates this with an example of someone using the benefits of smoking cessation to argue that e-cigarettes are safe for children, despite the two topics being unrelated. The paragraph explains how spurious correlations can lead to false conclusions and have serious real-world consequences, such as the anti-vaccine movement. It emphasizes the critical need to interrogate the evidence provided by online sources to determine its reliability and relevance, concluding that the quality of evidence directly impacts the quality of our decisions and societal outcomes.

Keywords

💡Evidence

Evidence refers to the proof or data that supports a claim or statement. In the video, John Green emphasizes that reliable online information must be backed by convincing evidence. Without evidence, claims are suspicious or untrustworthy, like the viral spider hoax example where no supporting details were provided to substantiate the alarming claim.

💡Reliable Source

A reliable source is one that provides trustworthy, accurate, and verifiable information. The video stresses that while it’s important to trust reliable sources, it's equally crucial that these sources back their claims with solid evidence. For instance, the video references peer-reviewed journals like *Science* to show how reliable sources present credible research.

💡Misinformation

Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is spread, regardless of intent. The video shows how posts lacking credible evidence, like the one about the deadly spider, can spread misinformation online, leading people to believe and share incorrect facts.

💡Disinformation

Disinformation is false information deliberately spread with the intention to deceive. In the video, John Green contrasts disinformation with misinformation by highlighting that some online sources intentionally spread false claims, like conspiracy theories about the moon landing, to mislead people.

💡Spurious Correlation

Spurious correlation refers to a misleading relationship between two events that appear to be related but are not causally connected. In the video, John Green gives the example of the correlation between Nicolas Cage movies and accidental pool drownings to illustrate how correlation does not imply causation, a common mistake in interpreting data.

💡Conspiracy Theory

A conspiracy theory is a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. In the video, conspiracy theories such as the idea that the moon landing was faked or that public figures are secretly under investigation are used as examples of how unreliable evidence can foster irrational beliefs.

💡Peer-reviewed Journal

A peer-reviewed journal is a scholarly publication in which articles are evaluated by independent experts before being accepted for publication. The video mentions *Science*, a peer-reviewed journal, to highlight how reliable sources use credible evidence, reinforcing the importance of lateral reading and verifying information.

💡Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs. In the video, John Green explains that people are more likely to believe misinformation if it aligns with their worldview, making it essential to question whether evidence supports the claim objectively.

💡Lateral Reading

Lateral reading is the practice of checking other sources to verify the credibility and reliability of a particular piece of information. John Green emphasizes this as a vital tool when assessing online information, particularly when looking at articles that provide evidence from multiple studies or perspectives, as shown in the example of climate change research.

💡Correlation vs. Causation

The concept of correlation versus causation addresses the difference between two events happening together (correlation) and one event directly causing the other (causation). The video demonstrates how correlation can be misleading, such as the false link between vaccines and autism, and stresses the need to critically evaluate data to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.

Highlights

The phrase 'Because I said so' is often used by parents but becomes insufficient as we grow older and need evidence to support claims.

In the digital age, it's crucial to evaluate the evidence behind online claims rather than trusting sources blindly.

Evidence can come in various forms, such as text, photos, videos, and data, but it must support the claim being made.

A viral Facebook post claimed a deadly spider was spreading across the U.S., but it lacked credible evidence and was debunked by fact-checking sites like Snopes.

The mere existence of evidence is not enough; the evidence must be credible and relevant to the claim.

Senator James Inhofe's attempt to disprove climate change by bringing a snowball to the Senate floor is an example of irrelevant evidence.

Conspiracy theories, such as claims about a global pedophile ring, often misuse unrelated evidence to create false narratives.

The importance of considering if a claim's evidence comes from a reliable source is emphasized throughout the episode.

A search for reliable information online is ultimately a search for reliable and convincing evidence.

The moon landing conspiracy theory is used as an example of how false claims can spread with videos and other misleading forms of evidence.

Just because e-cigarettes help people stop smoking doesn’t mean they are safe for kids, showcasing the use of irrelevant evidence in arguments.

Spurious correlations, such as the number of Nicolas Cage movies correlating with pool drownings, are often used to make false causal connections.

The anti-vaccination movement falsely correlates vaccines with autism, despite overwhelming scientific evidence disproving this link.

False information, such as the anti-vaccine movement, can have serious real-world consequences, including disease outbreaks like the measles.

The quality of the evidence we rely on directly impacts the quality of our decisions, making it essential to critically evaluate the sources of information.

Transcripts

Hi, I’m John Green, and this is Crash Course: Navigating Digital Information.

When you were a kid, did you ever hear the phrase “Because I said so”?

Like, I most often say that after my kids ask why they can’t have m&Ms for dinner.

The answer to which, of course, is “you will get scurvy if you eat that way.”

But that just leads to more questions about scurvy, and them begging to take a multivitamin

so they can eat M&Ms--It’s because I said so!

I say this because it gets results.

You listen to your parents because, you know, they’re your parents.

And also because they can take your phone away.

But as you grow older, “because I said so” no longer cuts it.

If you told your boss you deserve a raise “because I said so” you’re liable to

get fired.

Also, I can’t afford raises, Stan.

Do you think my fleet of lamborghinis pays for itself?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you want a raise, you need to learn how

to change the oil in a lamborghini.

NO!

You need to provide evidence that you deserve the raise, and that evidence needs to be convincing.

And that’s how online information works, too.

Not only should you look for reliable sources of information, but they should provide convincing

evidence for their claims.

Solid evidence, ideally.

And often, they don’t.

So today we’re going to focus on how to tell good evidence from bad evidence, and

maybe importantly, how to identify “Fine but that doesn’t actually prove your point”

evidence.

The stuff that the internet is built on.

INTRO

In the past few weeks, we’ve learned how to ask and answer the questions “Who said

that and why?” when we encounter new online information.

But those two questions alone aren’t enough to properly evaluate information.

We need to add another question to our repertoire: “What is the evidence?”

Why do we need evidence?

Can’t we just find a trustworthy source and believe whatever they say?

Wouldn’t that just be, you know, easier?

Well, yes, and it’s important to find and trust reliable sources of information, the

credibility of their claims depends on the evidence provided to back them up.

Evidence could be anything, really -- text, photos, videos, data -- as long as it supports

a claim and gives you a good reason to believe it’s true.

If someone is making a factual claim -- and not just voicing a subjective opinion -- then

they need to provide proof in order for us to believe it.

This classic tweet by comedian Nathan Fielder explains it all.

In the photo you see Nathan laughing, looking off camera.

The tweet reads “Out on the town having the time of my life with a bunch of friends.

They're all just out of frame, laughing too.”

To ruin the joke by explaining it, Nathan probably isn’t out on the town with friends,

otherwise, he would show them laughing instead of this lonely selfie.

It’s funny because the evidence doesn’t back up the claim.

But often, when the evidence does not back up the claim, it’s not funny.

It’s just misinformation.

Or disinformation.

As you probably know from just existing on the internet, it is really easy to hop online

and make any claim you want.

Like, I know this is going to sound wild, but you can literally type anything you want

into this box and click tweet, and share it with the world.

Like, the only thing this box will not publish to the public is a thought longer than 280

characters.

What a system!

But the same is true across social media: Politicians claim their opponents are bad

choices for government on facebook.

Conspiracy theorists take to YouTube to falsely claim the Earth is flat.

Celebrities use Instagram to claim they lost weight using lollipops.

And of course, on Tumblr everyone is claiming that your fave could never, and/or is problematic.

If a source provides no evidence at all to back up its claims, we should be suspicious

immediately.

I mean, without evidence, we have no way to know if its claims are true -- and thus no

reason to believe that they are.

For instance, take a look at this Facebook post that went viral in the summer of 2018.

It was shared 1.5 million times.

It says, “New Deadly Spider Spreads Across USA

The Spider From Hell.

Five people have died this week due to the bite of this deadly spider.

This spider was first seen in South Carolina in July.

Since then it has caused deaths in West Virginia, Tennessee and Mississippi.

One bite from this spider is deadly.

U.S.

Government working on a[n] anti-venom.

At this time please make your family and friends aware.”

The source is a seemingly random Facebook user you don’t know.

Although many posts you’ll encounter on Facebook are from friends or friends of friends,

you’ll also find posts from strangers.

And if they’re not public figures, you may not be able to verify their identity outside

of Facebook.

So, to determine if their information is trustworthy, we need to look at the evidence.

The post features photos of an admittedly terrifying-looking spider.

But it doesn’t include any other evidence.

It doesn’t say what type of spider this is, where it typically lives, or how it traveled

from South Carolina to West Virginia without visiting Virginia.

Wait!

Maybe it’s a flying spider.

Stan, are we sure that this deadly flying spider isn’t real?

There are also, tellingly, no links to the news stories about the deaths that this spider

supposedly caused, because you know, there weren’t any.

Also, there is nothing to suggest the government is studying an antidote.

Or for that matter, A antidote.

Now, fact-checking site Snopes.com debunked this all pretty easily.

They searched reputable sources for deaths attributed to this spider and found nothing.

They also found the person who initially posted this hoax has started other hoaxes in the

past.

In this case, the lack of evidence was reason to be very suspicious.

We didn’t necessarily need Snopes to tell us there’s no deadly spider taking over

the American south, but it is nice to be able to confirm our suspicions with another party.

But of course, the mere existence of evidence is not enough to verify a claim, though.

For instance, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe once brought a snowball onto the Senate floor

in order to disprove global warming.

It was February 2015 and he said that scientists had claimed 2014 was the warmest year on record.

Then he pulled a snowball out of a plastic bag and threw it on the ground.

Inside the Senate.

He was trying to use the snowball as evidence that the planet was not getting warmer because

it was cold in Washington, DC -- because you know, it was winter.

But we know, thanks to science, that winter continues to exist in many parts of the world,

but at the same time, the planet as a whole is also warming.

A snowball does not disprove climate change any more than a heat wave proves it, because

weather is what happens every day in the atmosphere, and climate is what’s happening overall.

And what’s happening overall is that things are getting hotter.

For another example, in 2017 a conspiracy theory cropped up on anonymous Internet message

boards claiming the United States Department of Justice was secretly investigating a global

pedophile ring.

The so-called evidence for this included pictures of Hillary Clinton, her daughter Chelsea Clinton

and Sen. John McCain wearing boots for foot injuries at different times.

The boots were supposedly covering up ankle monitors tracking them all during the investigation.

But, of course, all those photos actually prove is that feet are kind of easy to injure.

And get easier to injure as you age.

All of which brings me to perhaps the most important lesson of this episode: Not all

evidence is created equal.

The evidence a source provides should come from another reliable source.

And if you find yourself starting to believe complicated conspiracy theories, which, by

the way, I think we all do on the internet in 2018, you need to ask yourself, “does

this information really make sense, or am I just making it make sense in my brain?”

And two, perhaps more importantly, ‘does this information confirm my pre-existing world

view which makes me pre-disposed to believing it?’

Take this Axios report with the headline “Climate change may boost pests, stress food supplies.”

It says the global climate change could make millions food insecure in the future.

The article goes on to cite the findings of a new study from researchers at the University

of Washington, Stanford University, University of Vermont, and University of Colorado.

That study was published in Science, which some quick lateral reading can tell you, is

a well-respected peer reviewed journal, god I love lateral reading.

But they didn’t just cite that one study.

Axios also provided context in the form of a Harvard study published in a different peer-reviewed

journal and comments from a scientist not involved in either study.

In other words, they showed their receipts.

So really, a search for reliable information online is a search for reliable evidence.

Let’s take a closer look in the Thought Bubble.

OK.

Imagine this post pops into your news feed:

I can’t believe the mainstream media is hiding this story.

The moon landing was fake this whole time.

It’s accompanied by an image from the 1969 moon landing and includes a link to a video

called: Were the moon landings faked?

At face value, this post is claiming that the U.S. government never actually sent astronauts

to the moon in 1969.

The evidence provided is a video purporting to explain how they deceived the public.

But the presence of evidence, here in the form of a video link, does not guarantee the

claim’s validity.

If you follow the link, you’ll find the video in question belongs to a channel called

“Alltime Conspiracies.”

It’s a channel is filled with videos about conspiracy theories and supposed cover-ups,

like “10 real life vampires.”

Not exactly a trustworthy source.

There have only been 4 vampires in real history.

The video itself points out both what conspiracy theorists have said about the moon landing

and what official sources have said.

But the video is structured to make you think some questions have been left unanswered.

YouTube has also added an information panel to the video that points to the Encyclopedia

Britannica article on the Apollo Space Program.

Because YouTube wants you to look for information from other sources, especially around topics

that are prone to misinformation.

But let’s be clear: the moon landing definitely happened.

And for it not to have happened, a conspiracy would have needed to involve thousands of

people.

Thousands of people never conspire to do anything secretly.

The video may have looked interesting, but if you check the evidence, you will see how

clearly wrong the post is.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So sometimes, the source of evidence for a claim will be reliable, it just won’t exactly

be relevant to the argument.

Like, say you read a story online about how e-cigarette companies are marketing their

products to be attractive to teens.

Someone has commented on it, saying “It’s totally safe for kids.

After all, they help people stop smoking, don’t they?”

But wait a minute.

What does smoking cessation have to do with kids using e-cigarettes?

Nothing.

This is a classic case of utilizing evidence that may be relevant to the broader topic

of conversation -- in this case, e-cigarettes -- but doesn’t actually have any bearing

on the claim at hand -- that e-cigarettes are safe for kids.

And the use of irrelevant evidence like this can be a big obstacle when evaluating online

information.

Because not only must you determine whether a source sharing information is credible,

you also have to determine whether they’ve provided evidence and whether that evidence

is credible.

And this irrelevant evidence or evidence that doesn’t quite make the right point is all

around us online.

One very popular form of irrelevant evidence is the spurious correlation.

A spurious correlation is the implied causal relationship between events that are coincidentally

linked.

And this happens constantly with data.

For instance, there’s a strong correlation between the number of people who drown by

falling into a pool every year and the number of films that Nicolas Cage appears in that

year.

But Nicolas Cage movies do not, like, throw people into pools, because CORRELATION IS

NOT CAUSATION.

For instance, plenty of blog posts and misleading news articles have incorrectly implied a connection

between the rate of vaccines given to children and the rate of autism diagnoses.

In the past few decades, the number of vaccines recommended for kids has gone up as new medical

discoveries have been made.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder has also increased over the past few decades.

Despite bountiful scientific evidence showing there is no link between these two facts,

many continue to believe and use the web to spread the idea that vaccines “cause”

autism.

In fact, they’ve been so successful in spreading this spurious correlation that a drop in vaccination

rates and an outbreak of measles swept through Europe in 2018.

So this is not only about spiders that don’t exist.

This is, in some cases, a true matter of life and death.

Interrogating the evidence our online sources provide us is incredibly important.

We need to ask whether that evidence is reliable and whether it actually backs up the claim

being made.

The quality of our evidence, like the quality of our information, effects the quality of

our decisions.

And also the prevalence of measles.

We’ll dig even deeper into evidence next week.

I’ll see you then.