I enjoyed this profile of the economist Paul Krugman, but one small part of it illustrated a current pet peeve of mine. Benjamin Wallace-Wells, the author, brings up an argument nicely articulated by Cass Sunstein and beloved in Washington. In the contemporary media landscape, Sunstein notes, it's possible to suffer from ideological isolation. If you limit yourself to news sources, blogs, magazines, and other cultural products that merely reinforce your views, you're likely to go astray. As public sphere theorists might argue, one needs the corrective provided by argument, debate, opposition. Wallace-Wells asks Krugman if he worries about such isolation and the economist replies, "It could happen. But I work a lot from data; that's enough of an anchor. I have a good sense when a claim has gone too far." Wallace-Wells sniffs, "This is the claim of a supreme self-confidence. To say "I am anchored in the data," is really to say "I understand exactly what the data mean." Clearly, Wallace-Wells finds this to be highly unlikely. Everyone has "understandings." Like opinions, interpretations and understandings are all roughly equivalent.
Except that they aren't. This understanding of understanding plagues public life and my classroom. In fact, Krugman has spent a good deal of time crusading against precisely this assumption. To be clear, I am all in favor of debate. But not all interpretations are created equal. Some, as Krugman consistently notes, rely on the data; they provide evidence for their assertions and, perhaps more important, are willing to acknowledge that their models could be wrong and that their theories could be falsified by experience. When Krugman says that the data anchor him, he means his understandings are grounded; they come from a careful assessment of the information.
To offer an interpretation or an opinion, I tell my students, is not simply a matter of consulting your glands and reacting accordingly. Interpretations and opinions need to be supported by evidence; there are better or worse interpretations of speeches, economic models, and movies, for that matter. Your opinion can, in fact, be wrong, not least because the facts on which that opinion is based are, well, wrong. When you opine that we should enact big tax cuts because they will increase tax revenue, you are wrong. Experience has repeatedly shown you to be wrong. To opine that scientific studies come to no clear conclusion on the issue of climate change is simply wrong. They are clear; it is happening. This is what Krugman means when he says that he is anchored in the data. He tests his opinions, judgments, and theories against experience and information.
Now, of course there is always some interpretation involved here. And there are few absolutes in human affairs. But there's a big, lovely space between pure fact and pure opinion. It's called "rhetoric." It asks you to make arguments based on the best information available. That is a good thing.
Comments