My favorite is when there is a legitimate controversy in the field, and outsiders cherry pick which side to listen to. Person A references a study that just so happens to support his existing opinion. Person B searches and finds a study that contradicts it. Person A finds some criticism of that study and claims it's been "debunked". And so on, back and forth.
You end up with 2 sides that believe their opinions have been absolutely confirmed by science, and have impressive sounding statistics and studies to reference. When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus.
IIRC something like this happened with minimum wage debates. With some studies showing the effect of a higher minimum wage was positive, and others showing it was negative. Almost any political issue will have some of this.
Those are good points about the whole thing. People who have little contextual understanding and take one thing, as you mention, and use that to prove their point.
Another thing some people miss is the tradeoffs involved.
higher minimum wages as well as lower minimum wages have consequences --some contrary to what the proponents would like. For example, while I am for higher minimum wages, I understand that while this will help many people, it has the potential to have negative effects on people at the periphery. More things getting automated could result functionally illiterate people who have little besides manual labor to offer to be sidelined even more. Who does a poultry farmer hire, now that the rate is $15, a local worker or an illegal worker now that a local is attracted by the $15/hr?
> When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus.
And sometimes there is a consensus and it still doesn't prevent people from finding studies to back up their point of view. Take climate change for instance. When people aren't intellectual honest or have an agenda (e.g. politician), it's not even worth arguing.
That being said, I noticed that while it's pretty easy to find studies about anything, it's more difficult to assess the pertinence of those studies or to know what the current scientific consensus is.
Well there was a time when the climate change debate wasn't a consensus. That's when this started. There were legitimate criticisms and contrary studies. One side cherry picked those and came to believe that science had proved global warming wasn't real.
So even long after a consensus has formed, they still believe that.
You end up with 2 sides that believe their opinions have been absolutely confirmed by science, and have impressive sounding statistics and studies to reference. When in reality the facts are still uncertain and there is no consensus.
IIRC something like this happened with minimum wage debates. With some studies showing the effect of a higher minimum wage was positive, and others showing it was negative. Almost any political issue will have some of this.