Social Science Abuse and Politics: Notes on Election Season
The United States is well into the 2020 election season. The air is metaphorically filled with claims, counterclaims, and policy ideas.
Interested citizens need to know how to evaluate those claims and decide what to do. This obvious statement hides lots of problems and pitfalls though. If you’ve read about propaganda or skimmed a few of my articles, you know that social science isn’t always presented honestly. You may know the result of this gun law or that labor law isn’t going to be represented fairly. However, it might be helpful to spot and deflect the misuse, abuse, and manipulation. That’s what this article is about.
What if the United States government never passed a Social Security Act? How would we take care of ourselves in old age? Would a good system have emerged? How do you know?
What would have happened if the government never banned any type of gun? Would society be safer or more dangerous?
In the 19th century, the United States government helped established numerous agricultural and mechanical colleges around the country.
Would the nation be better off or worse off if the Land-Grant College Act of 1862 had failed to pass?
Whatever you think of gun laws, or government-funded education, or government pensions, you have to admit those collective decisions have made a big difference.
Social Policy Today
Now, we are being asked to consider how policy ideas and new laws will shape society for decades to come, maybe centuries. How do we evaluate those ideas? Shall we trust pundits, politicians, and religious leaders? Shall we go along with our own political leanings?
Someone is going to promote or defend or attack a policy idea. They may use reasonable arguments, but they may not. Opinion shows on Fox and CNN, political speeches, and the Democratic debates coming up in the USA will be full of problems. These social science problems will include some common abuses of science, logic, and statistics.
Here, in short, are a few things to look out for:
Anecdotes — You can find a story that promotes almost any point you want to make. Will banning handguns make the nation safer? Someone will invariably point out a case where someone defending themselves from violent criminals by pulling out a handgun. No series of personal stories can tell us if a handgun ban is a stupid idea.
Fictional Trends — Suicide is up 12% over last year. Does this mean suicide is becoming a bigger problem? No. It means you have two years of data on suicides. You need several years’ worth of data to know if suicide rates are going up or down.
Experts Say — Experts say that comprehensive sex education is harmful. Other experts say that abstinence-only sex ed works. Always, and especially if you agree with the unknown experts, be aware that whoever is speaking is either being lazy or dishonest.
Program X Works — What does “works” mean? Vague statements like this might be calculated to hide the truth, that we have no real idea if Program X works. If you like Program X, you might be willing to accept a vague claim that Program X “works”. This is faulty reasoning, but faulty reasoning that’s peddled to keep Program X in business. There may other motives in play, of course.
Fake Theories — “Theory” may be the most abused word in all science communication. Jane Citizen has a theory that food stamps make people dependent on the government. A pastor may theorize that Jews are plotting to have Donald Trump impeached and removed from office. (In fact, this has actually happened but I don’t want to give the person any attention.)
Loaded Language — Will taxpayer-funded healthcare enslave doctors? Really? Will murders and rapists “run wild” if handguns are banned? Really? As soon as someone lays on the loaded language, assume they are attacking an idea that they cannot attack on logic or fact alone.
If an idea is a good idea, we should be able to figure this out by looking at relevant statistics, theory, and research. Ideological convictions and religious beliefs will always be important, as will emotion. If we’re being asked to consider the Green New Deal or something else that’s huge, we still want to think effectively about the evidence for and against it.
Conclusions
We’re all trying to figure out how that policy or this law will help or hurt. We all have some sort of real-world evidence to look at. Most people have at least some desire to figure out if their policy ideas might work, and why. This is the beginning of scientific thinking about how to manage society, diagnose our problems, and design effective solutions to the problems.
Individuals have to find the motivation to evaluate political ideas. This is possibly even truer when the policy seems to fit your ideology. This is going to be one of several posts on thinking clearly about social science and social policy.
