In Chapter’s six and eight of UnSpun, Finding Facts in a World of Disinformation, by Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, we are given lessons to learn from so as not to confuse the information we hear. Jackson and Jamieson advise us to beware of confusing anecdotal information with actual studies that rely on collecting data based on scientific studies as opposed to making an observation from a one or two time observance and then making a claim about that one time experience. They cite the example of the crows dropping walnuts on the street and waiting for a car to run over them as evidence of how smart crows are. It turns out that this was a single observation by a professor and he published an anecdotal paper questioning it, he posed it as a question, however when biologist David Grobecker made his own observation of the same thing, and published his own anecdotal response, it was interpreted to mean it was conclusive when it was simply based on two independent single observations. The lesson here is “Don’t Confuse Anecdotes with Data.” Only use scientific evidence to form conclusions.

Another piece of cautionary advice is that we must be careful about putting to much reliance on our own personal experience. The lesson, “Remember the Blind Men and the Elephant,” reminds us of the story of the blind men all feeling different parts of an elephant. Each man had his own version of what he felt and that part was true, the problem was, they had to add all their experiences together in order to get the whole picture, so none of them had the true vision. Without putting all the pieces together we can be ignorant of large chunks of evidence, so if we only have one piece of a puzzle, we will never be able to see what the picture really is. The examples cited include the smart bomb accuracy, the fertilizer ALS connection, and the meaningless, homeless, number's game.

Another lesson is that “Not All Studies Are Equal,” when we are faced with a dramatic factual claim, we need to ask questions such as: who stands behind the information, does the source have an ax to grind, what method was used to gather information, how old is the data, how much guesswork was involved in the study. Evidence does matter especially in relation to people who present things for biased purposes as in the “Death Tax” fallacy.

“Saying It Doesn’t Make It So” is one more lesson we need to learn. It is based on the idea that constant repetition of a claim can cause people to believe it. This was shown through the skewed claims of rising abortion presented by Stassen in his faulty study. He was neither a statistician nor a healthcare expert.

“Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Evidence,” any dramatic claim needs to have scientific evidence to support it. Even a good study from a reputable source can be misleading if its results cannot be duplicated. The Cold Eze clinically proven cure to cut colds in half fell into this non-supported case of extraordinary, claim misrepresentation.

With anecdotes that can mislead, and sloppy studies masquerading as evidence, and good studies failing to stand up to research, here are a few things other things that do not count as evidence: appeals to authority( an authority in one field does not translate to another field), appeals to popularity(popularity settles elections, but not questions of fact), and faulty logic ( using what appears to be cause and effect to determine evidence.)

In Chapter 8, we are advised to question the authorities of the sources we are relying on to form our opinions. Undocumented quotes can mislead us if we accept it as facts, as in the Clarence Darrow creation vs. Darwinism debate. How can we know what is real and what is contrived? Jackson and Jamieson give us rules for avoiding those traps as well.

Rule #1: You Can’t Be Completely Certain. Absolute certainty is elusive, be suspicious of any claims that something is “always” or “never” so.

Rule #2: You Can Be Certain Enough: weighing facts is a matter of choosing the right standard of proof to give us the degree of certainty we need under the circumstances. Different situations call for different requirements of absolute proof, so we use the standard applicable to what the situation is.

Rule #3: Look for General Agreement Among Experts. Not all statistics results are accepted by all sides, but on the other hand consensus isn’t proof either. We can have confidence in the idea that we are getting the facts right when we start with what is widely accepted on all sides.

Rule #4: Check Primary Sources. Information can get distorted through several translations of an event, as in the childhood game of telephone, when reading a newspaper article headline, confirm it by reading the story, beware of partial quotes, or renditions of events from hearsay. Always track information upstream, especially if it is important to you.

Rule#5: Know What Counts. Pertaining to numbers, we need to know what is being counted. Don’t be confused by flim flam numbers games. People can twist statistics to represent what they want so beware.

Rule #6: Know Who’s Talking. If the information you are relying on is important, you need to know if the source is one of reputable credibility. Especially with matters of health and finances. Studies don’t always reveal who they are sponsored by and this can also be misleading. Sometimes the names a group call themselves can mislead you into thinking they represent something they don’t. That is one way special interest groups skew the facts.

Rule #7: Seeing Shouldn’t Necessarily Be Believing. We can’t always rely on our eyewitness accounts of events because studies have shown that eyewitness can be very inaccurate. People at the same event often do not have the same recollection of that event.

Rule #8: Cross-Check Everything That Matters. If we rely on only one source of information it is a good way to get steered the wrong way. The best information comes from two different sources using different methods and arriving at the same conclusion.

It is important to weigh the evidence of any information we rely on. Using the methods used that are applied to evidence used in trials can help us be more confident that the information we are receiving is reliable. Evidence can be weighed as follows: sworn testimony is mostly reliable, if a person has a self interest in something their statements should be given less credibility, confessions are reliable, information obtained from sources that have the reputation of the authority should be credible, look for transparency, statistical data should be measured by what the margin of error for the study is.

Other factors to consider are: what is the precision of the evidence? Estimates can vary greatly between the extremes to where the evidence is so far removed that it is not worthy to be counted upon. Convergence, is when different methods arrive at similar estimates, but when results diverge, we should be cautious about their reliability.

The final rule we are given is “Be Skeptical, but Not Cynical.” Skeptical people want to see evidence, cynical people assume they are being given inaccurate information. Don’t reject facts when shown evidence to support them. You can save money, and maybe your life by being skeptical about claims that seem faulty, but we should always look for real evidence to be as certain as we can be.