Before trusting any piece of evidence, ask these simple five basic questions, Who? What? When? Where? And most importantly Why? … writes Nigel Dudley
When several people interested in politics get together, the conversation invariably moves at some stage to relations between Nigel Farage and Elon Musk.
And this was the case after the recent suggestion that Musk was ready to donate a lot of money to Reform UK, the political party which Farage leads. Then, out of the blue, the American appeared to abandon Farage, calling for him to be replaced as party leader; reports suggest this was due to Farage’s refusal to follow Musk’s advice by admitting the far-right activist Tommy Robinson to Reform UK.
I suggested to friends this could be a fake dispute; Farage’s UK reputation could only benefit from appearing to stand up to American multi-millionaires and to exclude extremists from his party. There was a murmur of agreement and I realised that I could be launching a conspiracy theory. It was a classic – a series of comments that could be arguably linked to reach a conclusion confirmed by absolutely no evidence.
And yet…… If one looks at the way the powerful operate in the press and social media, it is just about plausible.
This story shows that it is hard enough for those who watch political leaders as their daily job to work out the difference between coincidences and conspiracies, let alone for those who are barraged by social media.
Whenever tempted to see a conspiracy, I remember my history professor, John Bromley, who would occasionally advise me to ‘beware of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”’ – a fallacy which suggests that since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X.
So how do we assess what is presented to us. Some say “look for “the evidence.” This sounds so reassuring. Yet much evidence is never published, more is published in part and under duress, and still more is created with those with an axe to grind.
Worst of all is that dreadfully abused phrase “independent research,” which implies that the researcher is driven solely by a search for the truth.
Yet research is invariably commissioned by someone with a commercial or political interest, and those carrying out the research will be aware of past, present and potentially future relationships with those commissioning the research.
The results may be accurate but it is a warning to be very careful of the motives of those involved, particularly those who use the phrases “research proves” or “we know.”
So, before trusting research, check the agendas of those commissioning it, the institutions they work for, the people on their advisory boards and any linked commercial projects they, particularly academics, may be involved in.
And, if there is something on social media, always look back to see who has said it and what organisation they represent. If there is doubt, ignore the comments.
However, one also needs to be careful about those who insist there is “a lack of evidence.” Politicians and business leaders are all too ready to use this line to demonstrate their lack of culpability – even when they have themselves been responsible for the lack of evidence. Listen to the witnesses in the Post Office public inquiry if you doubt my assertion.
Then there is the ministerial code, which governs the behaviour of ministers. It is so legalistically drawn that it is hard to prove that someone has broken it. Politicians today like to rely on the letter of the law when a generation ago, their colleagues would also ask: “Does this behaviour stink?” And if it does, they would trust their instinct rather than the letter of the law.
Most recently an inquiry found that Tulip Siddiq had not broken the ministerial code after an investigation into allegations about her family’s links to the ousted Bangladesh regime. It was the subtle phrasing of the report that enabled her to claim this while ensuring the conclusions could not save her job.
And there is an intriguing new tweak which will help those in power. The call for a new inquiry to find more evidence is the perfect way to dodge taking sensitive decisions or to avoid spending money.
There have been, for example, numerous inquiries into social care reform over the last 25 years, so there is no shortage of evidence. But Health Secretary Wes Streeting has announced a further investigation which delays the key decisions till 2028.
Then there is the statement, which almost always starts with the words “We take the xxxx issue very seriously,” and continues to ensure no-one takes any responsibility. Never trust the evidence of any organisation which issues a statement like this rather than appearing on the media for an interview.
So, we cannot automatically trust “evidence” or the motives of those who call for more evidence.
Perhaps we should press our political and business leaders to trust their judgement. But this will give them a major touch of the vapours as it requires them, horror of horrors, to take responsibility for their own decisions.
Let me set you a challenge. Find someone who appears on the Today programme and starts by taking responsibility for their own personal failings when things go wrong. They won’t do this even though their comments about others would be so much more plausible if they were preceded by some acceptance of direct personal responsibility.
There is a weary predictability to what happens. It is always easier to blame someone else or to claim that one has been made a scapegoat.
And all too many fall back on that laziest of excuses, blaming everything on a lack of resources. This has the damning effect of casting doubt on the credibility of those who really do have a shortage of money. So how can we find our way through this swirl of dubious information, peddled by bots, spin doctors and those conspiracy minded people who sit on social media.
Let me offer you a New Year’s resolution. Maintain total scepticism and – this is much harder – be as doubtful about those stories which confirm our instinctive prejudices as with those that go against them.
It is quite simple really. Before trusting any piece of evidence, ask these simple five basic questions, Who? What? When? Where? And most importantly Why?
