Skepticism - science, politics, investing

In my previous post, I stated my strong conviction that it's important to know why we believe what we do, and to recognize what evidence we'd need to convince us that we're wrong. I think about this a great deal, because I know I'm not infallible. I can be wrong. And so I try to examine my firmest beliefs most skeptically, so that I'm clear in my own mind why I still think they're correct.

One book which has been a big help with this is Thomas Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life (1991). Although he shows examples, this isn't about what we know that isn't so, but about how and why we think so. He compares these "cognitive illusions" to optical illusions. Just as optical illusions don't mean that our eyesight is poor, cognitive illusions don't mean that we're stupid. They're just a natural consequence of how our brains are put together. And we are all subject to these kinds of errors.

To a great extent, the scientific method has been developed to compensate for those natural human tendencies. Individual scientists are still human and still prone to such errors (not to mention normal human lapses in ethics and judgment). The scientific method does not stop that (though it does help to minimize the problem). No, instead it's a collaborative effort, always building on previous research, designed so that the majority will weed out errors and determine the truth.

It's not perfect, no doubt, but the scientific method is easily the best way we've ever discovered of separating the truth from wishful thinking. The scientific consensus may be wrong, but that's never the smart way to bet. I'm not a scientist, myself. So, on every scientific issue, I accept - tentatively, as all science is tentative - the consensus of scientists who specialize in that particular field.

Global warming, evolution, the effect of vaccines, the age of the Earth, homeopathy - all of these are questions of science, and all are best answered by scientists following the scientific method. Therefore, I accept the scientific consensus on all of them. (Really, with these issues, it's not even close. The consensus is overwhelming.)

It's harder with political issues, at least when those issues aren't scientific in nature. After all, we all tend to agree with "our side" in such things, and it's very easy to dismiss arguments by our opponents. But our society is based on the marketplace of ideas, that the majority will ultimately pick the best ideas if we can hear and debate them all. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion - all are part of that.

As a skeptic, I try very hard to listen to what my political opponents have to say. After all, rational conservatives and rational liberals both have valid points to make. And they're not always - or even usually - diametrically in opposition. Often, it's just a matter of priorities, of disagreement on which of two valid points is most important. And compromise can often take both points of view into account, with neither side getting everything they wanted, perhaps, but both seeing progress.

That's why the Republican Party infuriates me so much these days. Currently, the GOP seems to be all about political tactics, and not about policies or issues at all. They've become the party of the end justifies the means. The "end" is simply political power. And since lying has been a very effective political tactic for them, they lie. Repeatedly.

These days, the GOP refuses to bring anything to the marketplace of ideas - either because they don't have any ideas (or none that weren't thoroughly discredited during the Bush years), or because they're not confident they can win a fair debate. And winning, of course, is everything, so they do whatever it takes to win. It's always about tactics. It's always about strategy. It's never about what's right.

In the marketplace of ideas, you're allowed your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you just invent "facts" to push your argument, that's not just cheating, it completely negates the value of the marketplace. It becomes all about propaganda, and nothing about real ideas.

I suppose this is the influence of Fox "News." As David Frum said recently, "Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we're discovering that we work for Fox." Fox News used to support the Republican Party. Now, however, the Republican Party seems to exist to support Fox. Certainly, no Republican politician dares to buck them.

Likewise, while Rush Limbaugh has always been an extremist, but formerly on the lunatic fringe of the GOP, now he's become a real power in the party. No Republican dares to say anything even slightly critical of Limbaugh, or he's forced to grovel in apology.

Well, it's hard to feel too sorry for them, because the GOP has become trapped by its own cynical strategy. When the Democrats pushed through Congress the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which outlawed official segregation, Republicans were gleeful. All they needed to do was suck up to white racists and they could take the South (up until then, the most solidly Democratic part of the country). And so they did - and their "Southern Strategy" worked. Now, the South is solidly GOP. Likewise, they decided to "use" religious fundamentalists and right-wing extremists of all types. Hey, the end justifies the means, right?

But they did too good a job attracting the nut-cases. Extremists have now taken control of the whole party, and conservative politicians are terrified that they're not conservative enough for their new overlords. The lunatics have taken control of the asylum. Compromising with Democrats is considered treason, moderation is considered heresy, and no one can be too extreme for the tea-baggers who seem to control the GOP. Well, if you're willing to sleep with dogs, you've got to expect fleas.

Both the right and the left have always had their extremists. But the far-left has absolutely no power in the Democratic Party, none whatsoever. Even the mainstream left is disgruntled these days, since the power in the party is so clearly weighted towards the political center. The far-right, too, used to be mostly a fringe in the GOP, but not anymore. These days, they are the GOP. And if you don't like it, you'd better be careful not to say anything. David Frum is probably not the only conservative to lose a lucrative position for being mildly critical of the lunatics.

At any rate, it's hard these days to listen to rational conservatives, because I can't find any. Most of them have traded their principles for political ambition and joined the far-right crazies (John McCain is a prominent example), and the others are keeping their mouths shut about what they really think. Republican leaders aren't debating, they're just calling names. They're just lying. It's all about what works politically - and about keeping Fox "News," Rush Limbaugh, and the tea-baggers happy.

But I could be wrong. Heh, heh. I get pretty worked up by this, don't I? And I really don't think I'm wrong. But as a skeptic, I must keep that possibility in mind. So I do try to find rational conservatives. I read articles critical of Barack Obama and the Democrats (on the left and on the right). If they've got a point, I want to consider it. But these days, it's really not easy. Conservatives preach only to the choir and to the uninformed. They seem to have abandoned rational argument against anyone who know our own history.

My last example for skeptical thinking - at least, that I plan to discuss now - is investing. I don't gamble, because betting when the odds are against you is a sucker's game. I invest, since the odds are in my favor. That doesn't mean I'm guaranteed to win, certainly not. But the longer you invest, the more likely you are to come out ahead. The reverse is true with gambling.

Nevertheless, it's very easy to fool yourself when investing. In particular, it's easy to think that you're a genius when the market is going up. (At those times, everyone is a genius.) And it's very hard to avoid going along with the herd. Even when you know what you should do, it's very hard to actually do it.

I enjoy the strategy of investing. It's fun. I suspect that's not the way to look at it, but does it really hurt to enjoy what you're doing? I would never claim to be a great investor, and I would never recommend that anyone else follow my strategy. But it works for me.

One thing I do recommend, though, is to write down your plan. Why do you think this is the right way to proceed? What do you expect from it? And why have you chosen the particular investments you've picked? Regularly thereafter, you need to examine your short- and long-term results. Did you make the right decisions? Does your plan still make sense? If not, why not?

Note that losing money is not necessarily evidence that your plan was wrong. No one can reliably forecast the future. The best plan in the world might lose money, at least in the short term. But whether your investments have increased or decreased in value, was your thinking sound?

It might seem strange to include investing in a post about skepticism, but I think it fits. Human nature has a great deal to do with investing (almost as much as with gambling). And to invest successfully, I'm convinced that you have to understand why you're doing what you're doing. You need to have good reasons for your actions, good reasons for your beliefs. And you must accept that you could be wrong.

But you also need the courage of your convictions. You're not wrong just because everyone else says that you are. Don't ignore those people. Listen to them. You could indeed be wrong. But then, make up your own mind. That's never easy. We are social animals, and going along with the herd is natural. Many people would rather be wrong with everyone else than right alone.

Be especially skeptical about things that you want to be true. It is very, very easy to believe what we really want to be true. That's true for all of us. So if we care about being right, those are the things that we need to look at most critically. Make sure that your reasons for belief actually make sense. And don't ever stop questioning yourself.

This post has been kind of a mixed bag, hasn't it? Well, it seems to fit together in my mind, if not so well on the screen here. I'm a skeptic. If I had to use a one-word description of myself, that would probably be it. That doesn't mean I disbelieve everything, not at all. But it does mean that I question everything - and that I need good reasons for my beliefs.

Convince me that I'm wrong and I'll change my mind. But don't count on it being easy. I've thought about these things. I have reasons for my beliefs. I've challenged them myself, and I've tried to be critical. More importantly, I've tried to be rational.