How do I know when you're lying?

I recently had an encounter with an old acquaintance who, it turns out, is an anti-vaxxer. He lives in Germany, where anti-vaxxers are quite numerous. It brought home to me the desperate need for us to check the facts we are bombarded with on a daily basis, from our usual news media and especially from social media.

I don't know this guy all that well and have not been in touch with him for years. But when I saw him endorse the views on Facebook of a former professor at the University of Mainz who has created quite a stir with his anti vaccination claims, I wrote him to push him for evidence of his claim. What he came back with was a mere repetition of the doctor's claims, and no attempt to address the counter-evidence I presented.

I made the effort to explain what anybody with a basic knowledge of the art of argumentation knows - that one can counter the internal coherence of an argument or one can question the authority of the person making the argument - but one cannot - as my friend was doing - judge an argument on the strength of one's prior convictions or by looking the source in the eyes and believing they are sincere.

When, after another couple of times going back and forth, I realized I was dealing with somebody who lacked this basic education (he is a university graduate, so this came as a surprise), I shut down the exchange.

This personal encounter jolted me and brought home the difficulty in countering the very real presence of a large amount of misinformation out there on Covid. I have no trouble understanding that politicians like Florida's governor DeSantis, or Texas's governor, Greg Abbott or its Attorney General, Ken Paxton are untrustworthy sources of information and not above making decisions harmful to the public if it serves their own interest. But when a doctor with academic credentials speaks out, I want to listen much more carefully. I believe they should be given a full hearing and one should make every effort to be sure one is on the right track when listening to arguments, both pro and con.

A close friend just forwarded me an article from Indiana about an anti-vaxxer doctor there making his case before a school board. The doctor's name is Dan Stock. He is a family medicine specialist in Noblesville, a suburb of Indianapolis, and is affiliated with Community Hospital South there. I have no information about his standing or reputation. But the article does take on his claims, and refutes them. The chief source of the refutations (some claims are said to be misleading, some lack context, some are downright false) is a Dr. Gabriel T. Bosslet. Here are his credentials.

And here is the article, if you'd like to follow up on this news item. It's causing quite a stir.

It's tempting to just label anti-vaxxers as wackos. I'm naturally inclined to do that because the sources I follow, including the advice of Anthony Fauci whom I came to trust and respect during the AIDS Crisis nearly forty years ago now, lead me in that direction. So that's my starting bias. But a bias should not be an impediment to investigation. It should be an impetus to proceed with eyes open, to commit to objectivity, reason, and sincerity - to overcome that bias, if called for.

I think there is no shortcut. We simply have to doggedly insist on fact-checking, insist on evidence, and question all sides broadly.

There are two viruses abroad in the land. No, not just "in the land" but globally.  One is called Covid-19. The other could be labelled Misinformation and Gullibility. Both appear to be wide-spread and very dangerous indeed.

Fact-check. Fact-check. Fact-check, I say.

The problem, as always, is that fact-checking is more easily advocated for than carried out. Take the recent kerfluffle over the Pact Act, for example. I became aware of it when I heard the Jon Stewart rant in which he referred to that obnoxious Texas Senator as "Ted Fucking Cruz." Since my list of hypocrites running the country puts Ted Cruz up there at or near the top of the list, he had me at that. But what about the claim by Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania that the Democrats were trying to pull a fast one by shifting $400 billion of spending from "discretionary spending" to "mandatory spending"? Toomey is the guy who held up the benefits to veterans. Was it pique, as the democrats (and Jon Stewart) claimed? Or was he simply being fiscally responsible.

The fact that the Republicans who shifted in a giant wave from supporting the Pact Act to opposing it, and then in another giant wave back to supporting it again suggests that this fight had nothing to do with the veracity of Toomey's claims, but was, in fact, as the democrats claim, a nasty bit of Republican politics, and the Republicans were indeed willing to throw the veterans under the bus unless or until the American public called them on it in loud, clear, unequivocal language.

I know if I dug a little deeper I could probably find somebody to explain this all to me in plain English. But, as usual, I'm going with Jon Stewart and against the obstructionist Republicans, assuming they're just up to their old tricks.

It's just that my conscience is bothering me. How easily I believe what the members of my tribe tell me I should believe. How can I be sure I'm no better than the lemmings in the Republican party who follow their leader with eyes wide shut?

And what are we to do when fact-checking involves acquiring expertise, or at least a specialist's knowledge of some bit of technology or another? How much can we engage realistically in this country when we don't really understand what "budget reconciliation" is, for example? I know what it does. It is a process which enables congress to reach a decision by a simple majority vote, and not by a two-thirds vote, and by not permitting a filibuster and by limiting amendments somehow. But how does it work exactly?  One place to go for an answer is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where they have this helpful information:  10 pages - 4000 words. Piece of cake, right?

I gave up the idea of doing my own taxes several decades ago. We're never going to get a user-friendly IRA, I suspect. I fall apart when required to add figures from columns 1 and 3 and subtract them from column 4, enter them in column 2 and then submit forms x, y and z if the number is between h and j but only if your income last year was under k.

What do we have to do to be able to judge when the crooks and liars are getting away with murder? There are so many of them.

Do we have to continue to follow the popular comedians?  The gut is OK with that.

But what about the head?