Opinions, polls and pols

Anyone can have an opinion about anything, and nearly everyone does.  That's a fact, and it's a fact essential to polls.  Polls are nothing more than a way of measuring how opinions are distributed among a population.  So many head are counted expressing a preference towards one proffered opinion, so many the other way, and assuming that with a sufficient number of heads in a certain category you can predict what all heads of that type would say if asked the same question, the pollster announces the distribution of opinions among those heads.

And that is then presented by the press as a fact bearing somehow on the merits of the subject of the opinion.

However, since opinions are only as good as the judgment of the persons offering them, and that judgment is only as good as that person's familiarity with the underlying facts and assumptions, the opinion of most people on most topics is essentially worthless -- other than as a measure of sentiment, or the effectiveness of public relations campaigns.

If you ask the typical 4,000 random people whether carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by combustion of fossil fuels is a driver of climate change, you will certainly get their opinions.  But what do those 4,000 people base their opinions on?  Have they studied the CO2 record of the Vostok ice cores?  Are they current on the transport of latent heat in storm formations?  The absorbtion bands of various gasses in the atmosphere?  The operation of Henry's Law on partial pressure of CO2 in sea water?

I think not.  Instead, their opinions are largely based on haphazard, almost subconscious responses to tone and context, be it towards the environment or the economy, towards the global community or global government.  But not on the facts and assumptions in the science itself.

Politicians, unfortunately, try to ride the horse of public opinion towards their own ends, often in even greater ignorance of the ultimate wisdom or folly locked into their views.  Which is worse, higher taxes or higher debt?  Which is better, lower taxes or reduced services?  What drove the financial crisis of 2008?  What is right and what is wrong with the American health care system?  Do they have a clue?  If so, I see little evidence of it...

More on the role of the media in a future post, but for now, it is an absolute necessity to get away from mere opinions, postures, policies and debate.  People need to develop a sense of humility and insecurity in their own opinion, and instead seek out firm ground for reason and understanding of the issues attracting their attention.  I should not offer an opinion on a topic which I have not studied in sufficient depth, nor should I seek out opinions from individuals appealing to my sentiments.

Instead, I should see out facts and identify assumptions, and then validate those facts and assumptions against their underlying data and observations.  If there is controversy among the experts, I should not simply go with the one that seems more confident, or who has a louder voice or stands in front of a larger crowd.  Instead I need to investigate their assertions, and the questions and challenges posed by other people involved in the controversy -- even if their numbers are small and the rich and famous tell me to ignore them, tarring them with insults.  And even if I find myself satisfied with a particular understanding of the issue, I should be open to and carefully consider new divergent or contrary views when they arise.

The truth stands on its own against contrary claims, it does not need popular support, its worth is not determined by surveying public opinion.  Everyone knows this to be true, and it is to their underlying shame that we often claim the contrary.  People may at various times and to various degrees stroke their own egos, stuff their own pockets and honor their own superstitions, but not everyone, not everywhere, not always.  The human spirit is made of better stuff than that!