The assumption is that news reaches us through one of the many sources of information which, to date, we can include as means of communication: a website, a social network, an online newspaper, a paper newspaper, the radio, television or simply a conversation between friends. The objective is to understand whether it is correct information, whether this information can really represent news and whether or not the news has a journalistic implication or even the characteristics to involve us directly, especially in the case of news that affects the healthcare sphere. The algorithm to follow to establish it consists of the following steps:
1 – Ask yourself who spreads the news and under what circumstances
Each of us has a more or less unspeakable hatred for something or someone. At the same time we care about certain topics, issues or characters and we don't always tend to make this love obvious. It is absolutely human for this to be the case. We should learn to at least realize it. In technical jargon (psychology), this attitude is called “confirmation bias” and pushes people to move within a scope delimited by their own acquired beliefs, attempting to bring any situation they find themselves experiencing back to this scope.
Sometimes circumstances are also the harbingers of incorrect information. In a context in which one wants to amaze the audience, in a situation in which one wants to appear more informed, more astute, quicker to grasp concepts, more "studied", one tends to "blow it out", knowing that - after a few days – you will be able to count on the oblivion that memory naturally guarantees to shootouts between friends.
But how can we avoid it? bias of confirmation and that of circumstance? Sometimes you can't avoid it. It is enough to take this into account. It is not even a given that a person suffering from confirmation or circumstance bias spreads false or incorrect information. However, it is appropriate to examine this possibility, raising our antennas.
2 – Collect all possible information on the source of the information
This step is really fundamental. The optimum would be to avoid "intermediaries" in the information acquisition process. Get to primary source and investigate directly the history of this source it is clearly the best way to proceed. A newspaper, a popularizer, a person informed about the facts, who have repeatedly been caught mystifying reality, exploiting chiaroscuro or worse, inventing news from scratch, must necessarily be abandoned due to unreliability. Nobody is infallible, but this is precisely why we evaluate a source based on its habit of reporting the facts correctly. Generally, all biased sources should be excluded a priori (for political reasons, for issues of conflicts of interest, for friendship or kinship with the people involved in the events). This does not mean that they are absolutely unreliable sources, but - in the presence of other more neutral sources - it is best to choose the latter or take the former with a grain of salt.
We live in a historical moment in which anyone who opens a blog feels like a journalist, anyone with an Instagram account is a photographer and anyone who owns a video camera or a smartphone is a reporter. However, newspapers and journalists, be they publicists or professionals, are still considered important and authoritative, as is everything that comes from TV, radio, printed paper and registered online publications. Yet this consideration no longer has any reason to exist, because being registered as journalists, speak on TV or write in newspapers properly speaking, it is no longer a guarantee of anything. Neither of competence nor of professionalism. Just as the fact that someone publishes their investigations or insights on a public bulletin board is no guarantee of independence, correctness or transparency. What matters today is the reputation that each of these actors constructs themselves. The reliability of a source is given by its history. Point.
Be careful, however: any source that expresses opinions, however colorful and heated they may be, does not automatically become an unreliable source. We are all free to think whatever we like. What is not allowed is turning our ideas, our opinions or our hypotheses into theses, into facts. The facts must be proven. Political support is not wrong, our passions are sacrosanct and we can dedicate ourselves to them even by deceiving ourselves. What we shouldn't do is deceive others, just because we particularly like something.
It should be remembered that "collecting all possible information on the source" means investigating both groups and individuals: if a newspaper or a site has a history of proven correctness, it does not mean that individual authors cannot have a channel from which they disseminate information incorrect. Furthermore, it is necessary to carry out investigations without ever stopping at principle of authority, that is, taking a person's reliability for granted just because they have a title or recognition. Suffice it to say that even the Nobel Prize winners ended up spreading false information, either because they suffered from senile dementia, or because they were under the influence of drugs with long-term effects, or because epistemic transgression (expression of judgments by those who have the competence or experience suitable for making judgments in a particular field, but move to another field in which they have no or little competence, to express themselves in the same way) or even for failure to update on the matter.
But when can we think of giving another chance to a source that, in the past, has been responsible for misinformation? And how can we be sure that a reliable source doesn't start spreading misinformation right during our investigation? Very simple: first, we can give a new chance to anyone who admits the mistakes of the past. Anyone who perseveres in error and keeps the point despite the evidence having widely disproved him - on the contrary - must be totally deleted from the list of sources. We must also always be on the alert and never take anything for granted. Unfortunately, no one protects us from "future madness". The only weapon available, in these cases, is that of plurality of information sources. In the past, the State financed information sources precisely to guarantee plurality, that is, to avoid one-way information (even if the financing mechanisms were very ambiguous and lent themselves to the usual Italian-style deceptions). Fortunately, even without public funding, thanks above all to technology, the problem of correct information only concerns the lazy, the superficial, the damned stupid and - alas - those who allow themselves to be overwhelmed by their fears or their dreams/desires (through confirmation bias).
3 – Evaluate the source for competence
Who is talking? A mechanic who shows us the latest discoveries in the medical field? A nutritionist who explains how to tap dance? Possible and perhaps even impeccable from the point of view of content and correctness, but certainly not desirable for a statistical question: generally, those who carry out a certain profession have the skills to do that specific profession and not others (with the necessary exceptions). Listening to everyone's opinion, in a field where certain skills are necessary, there is a risk - in addition to the waste of time - of reaching the wrong conclusions. The best compromise, in these cases, is to assign gods weigh opinions of the various interlocutors, precisely according to the skills of each one in that specific field. This does not mean that everyone is free to say whatever nonsense crosses their mind, because - let's remember - anyone who puts forward a hypothesis, in an area where it is possible to demonstrate their statements, then has the burden of proof (i.e. it must be him to prove what he says). In fact, there are areas where opinions can have their dignity regardless of demonstrations. Politics, for example. Cuisine, art, philosophy, sport, entertainment. There is only one area, however, in which skills cannot be ignored: science.
When talking about competence, it is always good to make a distinction between those who argue their own hypotheses and those who indicate the theses of experts on that topic. A person who has no expertise in a particular subject and thinks he can give lessons to the audience that listens to him is clearly presumptuous and should be listened to only as long as he is able to prove his theses. A person without skills, who however illustrates the theories – demonstrated and verifiable – of the experts, always taking into account the circumstances and history of these experts (see point 1 and point 2), makes a positive contribution to the debate and can never be accused of presumption or arrogance. A person without expertise who relies on the theories of people with expertise, who however have conflicts of interest, a past history of mystification of reality, deception, political propaganda or suffer from senile dementia, is a person who makes a negative contribution to the debate and should not be taken into consideration. What is certain is that if the speaker were an expert in that subject who refers to other experts in that same subject, I don't think there is any need to say that it would be the best case.
4 – Look for confirmation of the same news from other reliable sources
In this situation, technology helps us. One of the first things to do is search for that same news on Google and see if there are other sources (reliable, see points above) that talk about it. The first suspicion could come from learning that the news read has ansingle source. This suspicion could be confirmed if the news is reported identically by other sources, but politically aligned on the same side. Sometimes we are very lucky and we find debunking sites (specialised in fact-checking) that do the dirty work for us: they analyze the news (using this very algorithm) and explain why it is completely distorted reality, information that is not exactly correct or simple biased hypotheses which therefore have no concrete value. Other times something extraordinary happens: the news is found on a site that is certified rubbish 100% from years and years of fake news hosted on this site. Well, even in that case, the probability of having read nonsense or spurious information skyrockets.
When can you stop searching for other sources? When you have a clear picture of the situation. These are elements that must be kept on standby. They must not be the only parameters of judgment, but they must correctly contribute to the analysis of the information you want to evaluate. It is therefore necessary to insert all the pieces in the right place. Never use the mere availability of other sources (perhaps only from the opposing political faction) to decree the inconsistency of a piece of news and immediately take the narrative of the only other bell as true.
5 – Evaluate the news on its merits
We finally arrive at the central aspect of the issue: the content of the news, the statements, everything what can be verified. Well, to do this type of analysis, unfortunately, you need a expert in that field. We can't do anything. Logic helps us, but if we are not perfectly aware of all the deceptions that are hidden in possible human reasoning, we run the risk - by doing it alone - of making big mistakes. For this reason, we must necessarily study, delve deeper and maintain a very cautious profile in making our judgements. What we can do - and it is not at all within everyone's reach - is to go and look for a REAL expert (without a previous history of errors, falsifications, pretexts or anything else) who explains and delves into the exact merit of what the information we have received.
If we talk about science, unfortunately, the task is much, much more complicated. Those who are far from the world of science and research do not know many mechanisms that lie behind these systems of knowledge. The first and most important mechanism that many ignore and whose lack can, in itself, undermine any type of argument whose validity is presumed is the so-called "scientific method“. This method cannot be ignored if one enters into the evaluation of information in the field of science.
The very first opportunity one has to encounter the scientific method is in elementary school. This concept is explained simply, with 5 steps identified by: observation, experimentation, measurement, production of results and verification. In elementary school you don't yet have all the tools to fully understand the meaning of each activity. Sometimes it happens that we grow up and never manage to grasp all these concepts well. The refuge pectorirum, in these cases, is the conspiracy. All bona fide conspiracy theorists (i.e. those who just don't get it) are the children of a lack of understanding of the scientific method. Everyone else is simply dishonest or bandits (swindlers).
Sometimes it would be enough to have a method to find out whether information is valid or not. It doesn't need to be scientific. Yet there are many people who cannot even manage to apply any method; they really think that going by nose, by intuition, by feeling really leads somewhere. Of course, it's true, there are many cases in which "what one felt" actually happens, but the problem is that all the predictions that have had a positive response in reality are then inexorably swamped by those that have failed. A person who does not apply a method - for example - in evaluating whether a medicine is effective or not, follows this practice: she has a problem, takes the remedy and then establishes whether "it works on him”. Thanks to this mechanism, which does not have any type of scientific value (it is called: anecdotal procedure), many companies and many professionals who produce drugs or therapies without any type of scientific basis, guarantee their market share in what is the business of the so-calledalternative medicine” (which really shouldn't be called “medicine”). The "non-method" of stupid people, unfortunately, has a huge impact on public opinion and often risks influencing even those who have a minimum of reason. A non-repeatable approach such as the non-method of it works is superimposable on chance, that is, on arbitrary choices and conclusions. In order to be called a method, it must be reproducible, it must follow steps, which must always be the same, not arbitrarily variable.
Science, the simple concept of method, has completely overcome it by "inventing" the scientific method. Not only is an algorithm followed, but the algorithm is always the same and in this way the data and results are comparable. When evaluating the effectiveness of a medicine, for example, the scientific method never ignores (except in cases where it is not applicable or when it does not need to be so rigorous) the following cornerstones:
- the presence of a statistically significant number of guinea pigs
- double blind (neither those who administer the medicine nor those who take it are aware of the presence of the active ingredient in the medicine being administered)
- the presence of a control group (i.e. a statistically significant number of guinea pigs to which a placebo is administered, i.e. something that is indistinguishable from the medicine subjected to efficacy testing), to see if the psychological conditioning of "taking a pill" is transformed or less in psychosomatic conditioning, i.e. “spontaneous” healing.
Just to give an example: there are useless pills or therapies that have not been subjected to this type of testing, but are still sold as possible remedies. There are others, such as homeopathic remedies (improperly called "remedies") which have been subjected to an enormous amount of tests of this type and every time the conclusion has been that they do not work more than once. placebo. Yet they are sold in pharmacies and offered by many operators in the sector as "medicines". The reason why the sale is not blocked is that they don't hurt. These are simply different placebos produced by different companies. But they are all absolutely useless (one would be enough for all ills), regardless of the anecdotal (i.e. the fact that someone actually gets a headache after taking a homeopathic sugar ball). To be clear: the tests done with aspirin do not record 100% of healings, that is, there is someone who takes aspirin and no harm goes away, just as there is someone who takes the homeopathic pill and the pain disappears , but it is precisely thanks to the statistically significant number of guinea pigs that it is then established, with those large numbers, whether the remedies work or not: to say so, their effectiveness must necessarily exceed that of the placebo.
Another distinction to have clear in mind when making an assessment on the merits is that between correlation and causation. In this case, we must admit that we are in the presence of a concept that is not at all trivial and which cannot be explained to anyone. A higher level of education is required. Simply put: the fact that two phenomena are correlated, that is, that their values - over time - have the same trend, does not mean at all that a cause-effect relationship exists between them, that is, that the occurrence of one is caused from the occurrence of the other. This latter relationship, in fact, must be demonstrated with tests that follow the scientific method (of which we have illustrated the "conditio sine qua non"). Correlation, to put it more rigorously, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.
The last concept that must be understood in depth, in order to evaluate a piece of news on its merits, is that of "community of experts“. To explain it in the easiest way possible, we can refer to a particular case, which can then be conveniently extended to the general case by simple extension, mutatis mutandis. The meaning of "scientific community" - this is the particular case - brings with it a series of other important concepts, which make us understand how science is protected from possible sabotage and why it always manages to amend itself without having to demolish its founding principles . The scientific community is not the sum of all scientists or all researchers who deal with this or that branch of science. Rather it is a abstract concept which involves people, things and situations, starting from a group of experts, who carry out research activities organized with methodical and rigorous procedures. For example, a doctor disbarred from the register for unscientific or ethically incorrect conduct does not belong to the scientific community. Those scientists who no longer make any contribution to the community, because they do not keep up to date or because they do not compare themselves with peers, do not belong to it, not even those who, instead of debating with colleagues (who have the skills to criticize them), turn directly to ordinary people (who most of the time do not have the tools to raise objections). All those who commit epistemic transgressions, ascending to the chair in areas in which they have no expertise, criticizing the work of all the other scientists who instead remain within the ranks of their own specialization, do not belong to the scientific community of a specific branch of science. It goes without saying that all those scientists who stop using the scientific method no longer belong to the scientific community, not to mention those who are caught deceiving the same community, for example, by using false, partial or falsified data (clear examples: Andrew Wakefield, Jacques Benveniste or Gilles-Éric Séralini). Instead, the figure of Paolo Zamboni, a scientist who, instead of falling in love with his alleged discovery, collaborated with colleagues to question it, should be included among the positive examples of how the scientific community works and saves itself from possible errors. and, thanks to this constructive way of proceeding, the discovery was reduced to size. Fall in love with your thesesUnfortunately, it brings negative contributions to the scientific community and, sometimes, for this reason we end up remaining on the margins, but with good reason. A scientist who falls (innocently) in love with his own supposed discoveries and tries to impose them despite the skepticism of his remaining peers, risks compromise perception that, from the outside, we have of the scientific community. A scientist who falls in love with his own ideas for commercial purposes (he forces his theses when they have not yet been verified to sell the product of these ideas) is very much on the borders of correct behavior (see the example of a doctor and a engineer who patented and marketed a lamp that eliminates viruses and bacteria, but which was only tested in laboratory conditions).
