In today's world, political information is everywhere. We encounter it on television, on social media, through search engines, from friends and family, and from the politicians themselves. Because information is so readily available, it is easy to believe that being informed simply means receiving a large amount of information.
But receiving information is not the same as knowing that information is true.
A person can hear the same political claim hundreds of times and still have no good reason to believe that it is true. Repetition can make an idea familiar, but familiarity is not proof. A persuasive speaker can make an argument sound convincing, but persuasion is not proof either. If we want to form educated political opinions, we must therefore develop a method for determining what information deserves to be accepted as knowledge.
I have developed the following model for the educated mind to use when accepting knowledge in politics. Its purpose is not to tell people what political opinions they should have. Its purpose is to help people determine why they should believe what they believe.
The Importance of Leaving Bias Behind
In order to form more educated political opinions, we must seek a perspective that encompasses the relevant possibilities rather than limiting ourselves to the perspective we already prefer.
Consider the following teaching from Nir Hazon's Scroll of Wisdom:
This does not mean that every opposing argument is correct. It means that we should be willing to examine an argument before deciding that it is wrong.
This distinction is important.
Objectivity does not require us to give every claim equal credibility. If one claim is supported by strong evidence and another is supported by little or no evidence, we should not pretend that the two claims are equally convincing simply because they represent different political positions. Instead, objectivity requires us to consider the possibilities and then evaluate them according to the evidence.
Sometimes, examining different sides of an argument can reveal information that neither side has considered. It can expose weaknesses in our own reasoning, reveal assumptions that we did not realize we were making, or even lead to solutions that would not have been discovered from a single perspective.
The larger our view of a political issue becomes, the more accurately we can understand it.
Never Become Too Certain to Learn
After recognizing the importance of leaving our biases behind, we must also recognize another danger: becoming so confident in our existing beliefs that we stop seriously considering information that could change them.
If our goal is to form educated opinions, we should not begin an investigation by deciding what the conclusion must be. We should begin by asking what is true.
This does not mean that we must remain uncertain about everything forever. Some political questions have answers that can be established with considerable confidence. Election results, the text of a law, a voting record, a government statistic, or the words spoken by a politician can often be investigated directly.
The principle is instead this:
Our confidence should be proportional to the strength of the evidence.
When the evidence is overwhelming, we can be highly confident. When the evidence is incomplete or contradictory, our confidence should be lower. When new and reliable evidence appears, we should be willing to revise our conclusions.
I therefore highly recommend remembering the following teaching from Nir Hazon's Scroll of Wisdom:
The moment we become convinced that we already understand something completely, we can become less willing to investigate it. We may stop asking questions, stop examining evidence, and begin defending our existing conclusion rather than searching for the truth.
Intelligence is therefore not merely the ability to reach conclusions. It is also the ability to recognize when a conclusion deserves to be questioned.
We should continuously ask:
What do I know? How do I know it? What evidence supports it? What evidence contradicts it? What am I assuming? And what evidence would cause me to change my mind?
These questions are especially important in politics because political beliefs can become closely connected to our identities, communities, and emotions.
What Exactly Are We Accepting as Knowledge?
Before accepting a political statement, we should determine what kind of statement it is.
A political statement may be:
A factual claim — a claim about something that happened or currently exists.
An interpretation — an explanation of what an event means or why it happened.
A prediction — a claim about what will happen in the future.
A value judgment — an opinion about what is good, bad, fair, unfair, desirable, or undesirable.
A political proposal — a recommendation about what government should do.
These categories should not be evaluated in exactly the same way.
For example, the statement that a particular law was passed is primarily a factual question. We can investigate the legislative record.
The statement that the law was beneficial is an evaluation. It requires us to examine its consequences as well as the values being used to determine what "beneficial" means.
The statement that the law will improve society in the future is a prediction. Predictions require evidence and reasoning about likely consequences, but they cannot be established with the same certainty as an event that has already occurred.
Recognizing these differences prevents us from treating opinions and predictions as though they were established facts.
Accepting Knowledge From Media Sources
Many people approach political information by asking only:
"What source said this?"
The source matters, but that question is not enough.
A reputable source can make a mistake. A source that usually reports accurately can present an incomplete picture. A commentator can accurately describe an event and then offer an unsupported interpretation of it. A social-media post can contain a genuine fact while drawing an unjustified conclusion from that fact.
We should therefore examine the claim itself, the evidence supporting it, and the reasoning used to reach the conclusion.
When receiving political information from the media, I recommend the following process.
1. Identify the claim
First, determine exactly what is being claimed.
Do not allow a dramatic headline or emotionally charged presentation to substitute for understanding the actual claim.
Ask:
What specifically am I being told happened?
2. Separate the event from the interpretation
A news report may contain both information about an event and an interpretation of what that event means.
Try to separate them.
For example:
Event: A politician voted for a particular bill.
Interpretation: The politician voted for the bill because they wanted a particular outcome.
Evaluation: The politician's vote was good or bad.
Prediction: The bill will produce a particular result.
These are different claims and should be evaluated separately.
3. Examine the evidence
Ask:
What evidence is being presented?
Whenever possible, go beyond the description of an event and examine the underlying evidence yourself.
For political questions, useful evidence can include government records, legislation, official statistics, court decisions, voting records, transcripts, public statements, research studies, and other primary sources.
A news organization can help you discover that an event happened, but sometimes the best way to determine what actually happened is to examine the original evidence.
4. Read beyond the first source
Do not allow one source to become your entire window into a political issue.
Read multiple credible sources and, when appropriate, examine sources that disagree with one another.
This does not mean looking for an artificial "50/50 balance." The purpose is to discover whether important information has been omitted, whether different sources interpret the same evidence differently, and whether your initial understanding survives examination from another perspective.
An especially useful practice is lateral reading: when you encounter an unfamiliar source or claim, leave that source and investigate what other reliable sources say about it. The Stanford Civic Online Reasoning program teaches this approach as a way of evaluating information online.
5. Investigate the source's interests and incentives
We should consider why a person or organization is presenting information.
Ask:
Who produced this information?
What is the purpose of the organization?
Is the person reporting, persuading, entertaining, fundraising, or campaigning?
Does the source have a financial, political, or ideological interest in the conclusion?
Is the source presenting evidence, or merely asking us to trust its interpretation?
Considering incentives does not automatically make a source unreliable. A source can have an interest in an issue and still provide accurate information. The purpose of examining incentives is to understand the context in which information is being presented.
6. Look for manipulation
Political communication frequently uses emotional techniques.
A headline may attempt to make us angry before we have learned what happened. A video may show only the portion of an event that supports a particular interpretation. A commentator may repeatedly use emotionally charged language to encourage a particular reaction.
We should therefore learn to recognize the difference between information and persuasion.
A useful question is:
If the same facts were presented without the emotional language, would I reach the same conclusion?
7. Look for the strongest opposing argument
Do not merely search for people who agree with you.
Ask:
What is the strongest argument against my current position?
Then investigate whether that argument has evidence behind it.
This is more valuable than finding a weak opposing argument and defeating it. If we only examine arguments that are easy for us to reject, we may become more confident without becoming more knowledgeable.
8. Search for disconfirming evidence
One of the greatest dangers in political reasoning is looking only for evidence that confirms what we already believe.
Instead, deliberately search for information that could prove your conclusion wrong.
Ask:
What would I expect to see if my belief were false?
Then look for it.
If your conclusion survives a serious attempt to disprove it, your confidence in that conclusion can reasonably increase.
9. Distinguish evidence from repetition
A claim does not become true merely because many people repeat it.
Ten commentators repeating the same unsupported claim do not necessarily provide ten independent pieces of evidence. They may all be repeating the same original error.
Whenever possible, trace important claims back toward their original evidence.
10. Reach your own conclusion
After examining the evidence, opposing arguments, and relevant perspectives, reach your own conclusion.
Do not blindly accept political beliefs because they come from a politician, news organization, friend, family member, teacher, social-media personality, political party, or any other authority.
Authority can be useful. Expertise matters. Reliable institutions deserve consideration. But accepting a statement solely because an authority said it is different from understanding the evidence that makes the statement credible.
The educated mind does not ask only:
"Who told me this?"
It also asks:
"What reason do I have to believe it?"
The Principle of Proportional Confidence
There is another principle that I believe should be added to the acceptance of knowledge in politics:
The strength of our belief should correspond to the strength of the evidence.
This protects us from two opposite mistakes.
The first is blind certainty: believing something strongly despite weak evidence.
The second is excessive skepticism: refusing to accept anything even when the evidence is overwhelming.
Neither is a good method of discovering truth.
If a claim has little evidence, we should have little confidence in it.
If a claim has substantial evidence, we can have greater confidence.
If the evidence is overwhelming and independently verified, very high confidence may be justified.
And if credible evidence contradicts something we previously believed, we should be willing to change our minds.
Changing one's mind in response to good evidence is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign that the process of reasoning is working.
Do Not Turn Politics Into a Battle of Sources
One of the greatest mistakes we can make is to reduce political reasoning to a competition between media organizations.
A person says, "My source says this."
Another person says, "My source says the opposite."
At that point, the disagreement can become a battle over which source deserves loyalty rather than an investigation into what actually happened.
The better question is:
What evidence do these sources have, and which interpretation is better supported by that evidence?
This is why I encourage people not merely to watch political news but to read, investigate, compare, and examine original evidence.
Television and online video can be useful ways to learn that something has happened, but reading allows us to slow down, examine the exact language being used, return to important passages, compare sources, and investigate evidence at our own pace.
The goal should not be to consume more political information.
The goal should be to understand political information more accurately.
Do Not Let Politics Choose Your Conclusions for You
Political parties, politicians, media organizations, commentators, social-media personalities, friends, and family can all influence the way we understand the world.
There is nothing inherently wrong with listening to these people. The danger begins when we allow them to do our thinking for us.
If a politician makes an argument, examine it.
If a news organization makes an argument, examine it.
If someone from the opposing political side makes an argument, examine that too.
And if someone on our own side makes an argument that is poorly supported, we should be willing to recognize that as well.
A truly educated political opinion should be capable of surviving scrutiny from both sides.
Know Who You Are Voting For
Political participation requires more than recognizing a person's name, political party, race, gender, or campaign image.
Before voting for a candidate, we should make an effort to understand who that person is, what they have previously done, what they believe, what policies they support, what they have promised to do, and what evidence exists concerning their qualifications and record.
A candidate's identity should not substitute for an examination of their ideas and qualifications.
Nor should a candidate's political party substitute for an examination of the individual candidate.
The fundamental question should be:
Why should I trust this person with political power?
The answer should be based on evidence, qualifications, character, past conduct, political positions, and the candidate's demonstrated ability to fulfill the responsibilities of the office—not merely on the group with which the candidate identifies.
A Model for the Educated Political Mind
The acceptance of knowledge in politics can therefore be summarized as a continuing process:
1. Identify the claim.
What exactly am I being told?
2. Determine what kind of claim it is.
Is it a fact, interpretation, prediction, value judgment, or proposal?
3. Examine the evidence.
What evidence supports it?
4. Examine the original sources when possible.
Can I verify the claim from primary evidence?
5. Read laterally.
What do other credible sources say about the source and its claims?
6. Consider opposing perspectives.
What is the strongest argument against my current position?
7. Search for disconfirming evidence.
What information could prove me wrong?
8. Examine incentives and persuasion.
Is someone trying to inform me, persuade me, frighten me, anger me, entertain me, or gain something from my belief?
9. Compare the evidence.
Which explanation is best supported?
10. Assign confidence proportionally.
How certain should I be given the quality of the evidence?
11. Reach an independent conclusion.
What do I believe after examining the evidence rather than merely following an authority?
12. Remain open to revision.
What new evidence could change my conclusion?
This is not a demand that every citizen become a political scientist. It is a practical method for ordinary people who want to make better decisions about the information they encounter every day.
The Purpose of Political Knowledge
The purpose of this model is not to make everyone agree.
A society can contain reasonable disagreements because people can interpret evidence differently, prioritize different values, and have different predictions about the consequences of political decisions.
The purpose is something more fundamental:
We should strive to make our political beliefs the product of investigation rather than mere inheritance, repetition, loyalty, or emotion.
We should be able to say not merely, "I believe this because my political side believes it," but:
"I believe this because I examined the evidence, considered the alternatives, attempted to find reasons I might be wrong, and reached the conclusion that is best supported by what I know."
That is a more powerful form of political independence.
The educated political mind is not the mind that knows everything. It is the mind that remains willing to investigate.
It does not blindly trust.
It does not blindly distrust.
It does not automatically accept the information presented by one side, nor does it automatically reject information presented by the other.
It seeks the larger picture.
It examines the evidence.
It questions its own assumptions.
And above all, it remains willing to change its conclusions when the truth demands it.
For a complete theory on what knowledge we can easily accept and what knowledge is questionable and therefore up for consideration, check out the following theory:
