Reference Section
A debate is interactive and unfolds in real-time, unlike more static forms of information such as scientific studies, statistics, white papers, books, historical documents, and longer treatises on a subject. These documents represent considerable time, effort, and intensive thinking, and should not be disregarded.
Nonetheless, these materials require scrutiny to ensure their accuracy, discover any nuances, and identify personal biases.
Even scientific studies are not immune to flaws or biases, especially when influenced by sponsors with specific expectations. How would the sponsor benefit from one conclusion versus another? Was there oversight by the sponsor? Did the sponsor throw out any studies that didn’t produce the desired results?
Many scientists and professors are required to produce publications as a necessity for their career. However, not all research makes it to publication, especially studies with inconclusive results. Despite their scientific value, these types of studies often go unpublished and unfinished because they are not deemed newsworthy. As a result, researchers may prefer to embark on projects with a higher chance of publication, thereby injecting an inherent bias of motive into the overall scientific process.
This hidden preference for publishable topics narrows the focus of research. So how do we compensate in our debate? We can at least scrutinize the study in the usual fashion, evaluating the methods that were used. In addition, we can analyze what wasn’t studied or what further research should be done to verify any conclusions. We essentially apply a more accurate conclusion to each study.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Another element of a study is what the conclusions say and don’t say. No study is perfect nor comprehensive. Critical analysis can uncover overlooked variables, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the results. For instance if a study tried to show the health effects of eating meat, did they differentiate between grass-fed and grain fed cattle? What grains were used? Were antibiotics used on the animals? What medical conditions were tracked on the human volunteers and how many preexisting conditions were tested? Are there age and race concerns for health factors? Was the remainder of their diet consistent through all volunteers? These are the nuances that are important for accuracy. We also should become accustomed to interpreting studies based on probabilities of outcomes instead of absolute certainties.
The peer review system that is touted by the scientific community has been a great plus to our world. Yet it is far from perfect. How many scientists see potential problems in a study and lack the ability to pursue the proof?
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
Similarly, facts and statistics require careful interpretation to avoid misleading conclusions. There’s a saying, “Statistics don’t lie, but liars use statistics.” Yet that is too harsh because we more commonly use statistics without proper analysis of what they mean. The context in which data is presented can significantly impact its perceived meaning.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
When it comes to books and longer treatises, even the most diligent and knowledgeable authors may unintentionally inject bias into their work, believing they are presenting a balanced view. Let’s give them credit for their hard work. Yet every author has at least a subtle bias going into their research when they expect a result or want a result. Authors also have restrictions on the length of their publication and are influenced by professional acceptance and salability.
Let’s put it another way. Authors connect the logical dots of an issue. That’s the tremendous value of what they do… logic. Nonetheless, did they include all of the dots? Did they properly assign the right priority and importance of the dots? Who has the superpowers to decipher their own subconscious and bias? That’s where we, the rest of us, come in. Bias can only be overcome if enough people weigh in on the logic. It’s for this reason that we so profoundly need each other.
◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆◆
↑ TOP
Analyzing a Reference Item
In the Decision Website, every reference document will have a collaborative critique attached to it, stating what it specifically concludes and what it doesn’t. Maybe we assign probabilities to each conclusion or state the nuances of how it should be used. The goal is to make it easy for us to quickly check if facts, statistics, scientific studies, and text articles are being used properly within our debates.
Everything needs to be analyzed.
So, how will this process work? When a participant submits a reference document to be used in a debate, everyone else is free to join the critique. It’s a separate debate on the reference material. Hopefully the original author of the material will join in with their considerable grasp on the subject.
As to the use of books as reference material, AI can be a big advantage. You can ask AI to read a book and provide summaries and conclusions. It’s how your kids will do book reports in the future, but it’s also how you can gain insight from books at breakneck speed. The readers in our society, who recognize the significance of a detailed presentation of a book, will be the balance to AI’s interpretation. All of us are important.
Finally, there is a beauty in this reference process? We put the energy into debating the reference material, and it can be used thereafter in perpetuity for other debates. Its conclusions will gets stronger and more exact with new eyes and additional perspectives. Our work is never lost, only built upon.
↑ TOP
When needed, a submission to a debate may include a reference (with a link) to some material in the Decision Website’s reference section. The debater will now be critiqued in their submission as to how they used that reference and whether they are stating any limitations found in the material’s critique.
↑ TOP
