Beyond Feelings - Vincent Ruggiero [74]
HOW TO INTERPRET
The focus of our interpretation depends on the kind of evidence we are interpreting. Evidence from our own direct experience or observation poses different questions than evidence given us by others and evidence obtained through research. The following questions are arranged by category.
If the evidence is from your own experience or direct observation, ask:
How accurately did I observe? What kinds of inaccuracies in perceiving could have been caused by the circumstances of the event or issue? (Did it occur quickly? Were there any physical impediments such as my distance form what happened, the time of day, or weather conditions?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my state of mind? (Was I tired? Afraid? Distraught? Angry?) What kinds of inaccuracies could have been caused by my mood or my attitude toward the issue, the people, or the place? Was I predisposed to view the matter one way?
Is what I experienced or observed typical of all such cases? Is it possible that it is more the exception than the rule? Were the circumstances unusually enough that it was different than it would usually be?
If the evidence is from the experience and observation of other people, ask (in addition to the questions you'd ask of your own experience and observation):
Did the person who reported the matter to me experience or observe the matter herself? Or was she reporting someone else's experiences?
Does the reporter's reputation warrant my accepting he report at face value? (Is she regarded as a careful observer? Are her statements generally accurate the precise?)
If more than one person experienced or observed the matter, do their reports agree?
If the evidence is from your research (that is, from an article or book or television program), ask:
How consistent is this particular piece of evidence with other evidence? (All available evidence can point to a wrong conclusion, of course. For years all available evidence suggested that man's immediate ancestor, Homo erectus, "upright man," first appeared about a million years ago. Then bones were discovered in eastern Africa that showed humans lived more than 21/2 million years ago.2 Later discoveries extended that to 31/3 million years ago.)3
If the evidence is found in a magazine article, how reputable is the magazine? Is it given to the sensational? Is it considered a responsible publication?
How careful does the writer seem to be about avoiding unsupported assertions, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations? How impartial is the writer? (It's only reasonable to be a bit skeptical about a writer with an obvious bias, such as the chairwoman of a political party explaining the virtues of her candidate. She may be being impartial, but she will tend to be more prone to unconscious one-sidedness.)
If the article, book, or TV program refers to the results of research, does it provide important details? For example, if the research involved interviews, how many people were involved? What was the range of geographical areas, occupations, and ages? What questions were asked? (Not every research project is sufficiently comprehensive to answer the questions it proposes to answer. In the nineteenth century Cesare Lombroso, Chairman of the Criminal Anthropology Department at the University of Turin, Italy, theorized that all criminals had certain peculiarities in common. One special distinguishing characteristic he believed all criminal possessed was a skull deformity. The criminal skull shape, he believed, resembled that of primitive man. His research in prisons seemed to verify the theory and for a time it was very influential until a British researcher, C. Goring, found as many college students and professors with that head shape as convicts!)
It's important to remember that writers may, consciously or unconsciously, include the evidence that supports their