The Franklin Files

[6] Common-sense guidelines for determining the
truth in social contexts

Now that we are prepared with a knowledge of
disinformation tactics, it might be tempting to
become a professional paranoid, avoiding all social
contact, stopping all magazine subscriptions, and
throwing out the TV set. Hey, lighten up, or all
those New Agers will accuse you of harboring a
vortex of negative energies!

Since the arrival of the Internet, I've benefited
greatly in my own search for answers. Only 5 years
ago, even minor research projects would require me
to travel to the nearest university town to comb the
card catalogs, race up and down library stairwells,
track down missing books, order materials from other
libraries, and scan through hundreds of pages under
glaring fluorescent lights. Now I can access orders
of magnitude more information and disinformation
without ever leaving my desk. Life as a professional
sleuth of obscure health information has never been
more exciting! There are so many puzzles and enigmas
to choose from. The presence of disinformation only
makes the search more challenging.

Now that we've explored the tactics of
disinformation, I'd like to leave you with a few
common-sense guidelines for recognizing the truth.
There is nothing mysterious about these guidelines.
Most of us use them, but perhaps not often enough.
These guidelines are listed in order of increasing
difficulty and complexity; the first few rules are
so simple that we should make them daily habits.

In deciding whether to believe the source of an
alleged fact or idea, we should ask ourselves the
following questions:


(1) If speaking with the information source in
person, does the source have the body language of
someone who speaks the truth?

  Eye movements, facial expressions, nervous
twitching, postural shifting, and other such cues
are commonly used by professional investigators and
psychologists. Most people have some instinct for
this and can develop this skill with practice.


(2) Does your "gut reaction" tell you anything?

  Our central nervous systems process much
information subconsciously, and the hypothalamus and
autonomic nervous system manifest the results as
sensations in our chest and abdomen coupled with
changes in emotional state. [ref. 7] 

  Listen to your instincts. They are not the final
word, but should be used as a crude "hot-cold"
indicator. A sudden sense of queasiness in the
epigastrial region should be taken as a warning sign
to investigate the matter further.


(3) Has the source given you other information that
you have independently determined to be accurate in
the past, or has the source relayed misinformation?
Has the source demonstrated good skills of
observation, freedom from biases, etc.?

  Too many people will pass on information that they
assume is correct merely because they saw it in
print or on television. Fortunately, more people are
figuring this one out. Scientific journals have a
greater aura of prestige than television, but are
just as subject to error and deception; however, to
maintain their prestige, the errors must be more
sophisticated and stylish than those allowed on
television.

  Also, be careful of the betrayal-by-trusted-source
tactic, especially regarding commercial news and
information sources.


(4) Does the source have both the life experience
and the academic background to evaluate the topic?

  I've seen many an academic miss the boat because
of a lack of personal experience; relying solely on
book knowledge is often dangerous. Murphy's Law (if
something can go wrong, it will) seems to strike
egghead academics lacking practical experience with
great frequency. Witness the inability of professional
economists to predict trends better than a
random-number generator.


(5) Does the source have a motive or vested interest
in stating his alleged facts or ideas?

  If a source stands to gain financially or
otherwise by making a statement or claim, this would
obviously cloud his or her objectivity and ethics,
and should weigh heavily in our judgment of
truthfulness. Certainly, considering such motives,
we should not accept the statement without further
investigation using other sources. Drug companies
that fund researchers to prove drug safety are
committing an obvious conflict of interest, and such
conflicts should be stated in any published research
reports; this problem has recently been acknowledged
as both serious and widespread. [Refs. 5a-5d]


(6) Is the alleged fact or idea consistent with
other facts you know or believe to be true, and do
all of the relevant facts fit together logically?

  Criminal investigators rely heavily on
inconsistencies in people's stories. The most
difficult aspect of fabricating stories or evidence
is attempting to ensure that all the details match
up with reality. If any inconsistency can be
discovered, it may lead to other inconsistencies,
and the fabricated story will unravel like a ball of
string. In contrast, the solidity of a true idea
will become evident the more it is probed.

  Inconsistencies are just as important in
scientific investigation and research. Plausible
theories and explanations must account for all the
true and accurately obtained data, not just the data
that conveniently supports one's pet theory.


(7) Are official news reports consistent with
eye-witness reports of reliable friends and
associates?

  If official news and media reports do conflict
with eye-witness reports or personal experiences of
your friends, then you have uncovered an obvious
inconsistency. I've noted an ever increasing
divergence between the collective wisdom of my
friends and professional colleagues and the official
media sources. After decades of reading Pravda,
Russians became skeptical and cynical, routinely
reading between the lines of official propaganda.
It is time for Americans to learn how to cope with
this problem.