Evaluating Evidence: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #6

Main Ideas / Lessons

• “Because I said so” isn’t enough anymore: As you grow older (e.g., in workplaces or public life), you can’t rely on authority alone—you need convincing evidence.

• When evaluating online information, ask: “What is the evidence?” Earlier lessons focused on “Who said that?” and “Why?”—this one adds a third pillar: evidence.

• Evidence = support for claims: Evidence can include text, photos, videos, and data, as long as it gives a reason to believe a factual claim.

• No evidence (or missing support) is a major red flag: If a claim comes with no evidence, you have little reason to trust it.
• Not all evidence is created equal: Even if evidence exists, it may be:
  • Unreliable (from untrustworthy sources)
  • Irrelevant (supports a different claim than the one being argued)
  • Misinterpreted (e.g., confusing correlation with causation)
  • Insufficient to prove the conclusion (it may omit the logic needed to connect evidence to the claim)
• Complicated claims should be stress-tested: Ask whether the information
  • makes sense
  • confirms your pre-existing worldview (and may therefore reflect bias)
• Good sources show “receipts”: Strong reporting includes credible references (ideally peer-reviewed research), multiple sources, and supporting commentary—not just screenshots or one-sided claims.
• Evidence can be structurally misleading: A video or link may look convincing, but its presentation can be designed to create the impression that key questions are unanswered.
• Weather vs. climate matters: Use correct scientific framing—single examples (like winter cold) don’t disprove big-picture trends (like climate warming).
• This affects real-world outcomes: Misleading evidence can lead to harmful decisions (e.g., vaccine misinformation contributing to measles outbreaks).

Core takeaway: treat claims as hypotheses until you see relevant, credible evidence that actually supports the conclusion.

---

Method / Instruction List: How to Evaluate Evidence

1. Step 1: Confirm the claim type

   • If it’s a factual claim (not a subjective opinion), it should be backed by proof.

2. Step 2: Check whether evidence is provided

   • If a post/source provides no verifiable evidence, treat it as suspicious.
   • Look for specific support: identification, locations, mechanisms, and links to corroborating reporting/data.

3. Step 3: Verify the evidence and its credibility

   • Ask whether the evidence comes from another reliable source (not just a random claim, anonymous post, or conspiracy channel).
   • Where possible, corroborate using reputable outlets or fact-checkers.

4. Step 4: Check whether the evidence actually supports the argument

   • Ask whether the evidence is relevant to the specific claim being made.
   • Watch for the “Fine, but it doesn’t prove your point” problem.

5. Step 5: Test for misleading reasoning

   • Guard against spurious correlation (“correlation is not causation”).
   • Don’t treat coincidences as explanations.

6. Step 6: Look for bias and worldview confirmation

   • Ask:
     • “Does this make sense?”
     • “Am I accepting it because it confirms what I already believe?”

7. Step 7: Prefer context and high-quality references

   • Strong coverage often includes:
     • peer-reviewed studies
     • multiple lines of support
     • context from other studies
     • expert commentary

8. Step 8: Use correct scientific concepts

   • Don’t confuse related but different concepts (example: weather vs climate).

---

Examples Used to Illustrate the Concepts

• Misinformation with no support

  • A viral Facebook post claiming a “deadly spider” spreads across the U.S. includes alarming photos but no identifying details, no corroborating news links, and no credible government antidote evidence. Snopes found it baseless.

• Evidence that doesn’t prove the conclusion

  • A senator uses a snowball in the Senate to argue against global warming. The lesson: cold weather doesn’t disprove climate warming because climates are long-term patterns.

• Misleading “evidence” from coincidence or weak interpretation

  • Conspiracy claims about a DOJ pedophile ring interpret unrelated photos (boots for foot injuries) as proof of hidden ankle monitors—misreading what the images actually show.

• Credible evidence vs. irrelevant evidence

  • An example about “e-cigarettes marketing to teens” claims safety for kids based on smoking cessation. The lesson: the safety argument for teens isn’t supported by cessation claims (a relevance mismatch).

• Spurious correlation / correlation-causation mix-up

  • Vaccines and autism claims: vaccine recommendations increased as medical knowledge expanded, and autism diagnoses also increased—yet scientific evidence shows no causal link. Real-world outbreaks (like measles in Europe) illustrate the harm of misinformation.

• Credible evidence but still a wrong conclusion

  • A moon landing conspiracy “evidence” video links to a conspiracy-themed channel and frames the story to imply missing answers, while credible references and the scale of required coordination undermine the claim.

---

Speakers / Sources Featured

Speaker

• John Green (host; Crash Course: Navigating Digital Information)

Referenced Sources / Entities

• Nathan Fielder (comedian; used via a tweet/photo example about evidence not backing a claim)
• Snopes.com (fact-checking site that debunked the “deadly spider” hoax)
• James Inhofe (U.S. Senator; snowball example)
• Axios (news report example about climate change, pests, and food supplies)
• University researchers named in the example:
  • University of Washington
  • Stanford University
  • University of Vermont
  • University of Colorado
• Harvard study (mentioned as additional context in the Axios example)
• Science (peer-reviewed journal referenced)
• Encyclopaedia Britannica (referenced via YouTube information panel about Apollo/space program)
• YouTube (platform used for information panels; also hosts linked conspiracy content)
• “Alltime Conspiracies” (conspiracy-focused YouTube channel referenced in the moon landing example)
• Hillary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, Sen. John McCain (referenced in the boots/ankle-monitor conspiracy example)
• U.S. Department of Justice (referenced in the conspiracy-theory example)
• European public health context / measles outbreak (2018) (referenced)
• Measles (as the real-world consequence tied to misinformation)