American society is being torn apart by widespread efforts to deceive and distort. Two broadly defined groups dominate these efforts. One is associated with the Republican Party and Donald Trump and has the support of many elected officials. It has significant representation among media outlets but a limited presence in the academic world. The other is associated with the Democrats but tends to be on its fringes. It doesn’t have a lot of outright support in the mainstream media, but many outlets are reluctant to challenge its outrages. It’s very strong in academia.

The two factions always at each other’s throats, but they’re similar in many important ways. Their goal is power. Keeping their own group in line is as important as attacking those who disagree with them. The important thing is to control their followers and promote hatred of non-followers. They use similar techniques to deceive and control. They want fear and hatred to replace reason.

Writers of nonfiction (and even writers of fiction, in a less direct way) should be on the front lines to challenge all promoters of unreason, taking on their false statements and identifying their methods. It’s a tricky challenge. We’re all subject to manipulation when we let our guard down. We can’t always tell facts from fabrications. We’re each well-informed in some areas and ignorant in others.

Each of us will make mistakes, but we can all contribute to rebuilding a culture of reason. Always double-check the facts and look for logical fallacies. Be ready to call out any of these stunts:

• “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning. In English, this means “X happened after Y, therefore X happened because of Y.” It’s a popular trick among people who want to make something look dangerous.
• Ad hominem argumentation. More Latin, meaning an attempt to discredit the person making the claim rather than the reasons given for it. Pointing out that someone is unreliable or has a vested interest is legitimate, but it’s not a substitute for showing the claim is wrong.
• Out-of-context quotations. Quoting a few words from someone can give a highly misleading impression. An especially dirty trick is to quote something which the original speaker is quoting or paraphrasing for the purpose of arguing against it, and not explaining the context.
• Name-calling. Some people deserve to be called nasty names, but it’s also a technique of emotional manipulation. If there’s no substance to the name-calling, it’s just an attempt to stir up the crowd.]
• Selective omission. The omission of essential information is an effective propaganda technique. It doesn’t expose anyone to charges of falsehood, yet it can mislead as effectively as a lie.
• Straw-man arguments. Tearing apart the weakest, most defective arguments for a position may make impressive-looking copy, but it proves nothing. Except, perhaps, that the person using the straw man has nothing more solid to offer.

Make allowances. Don’t assume dishonesty when sloppiness is a sufficient explanation. People sometimes make errors, especially when they’re passionate about an issue. Look for a pattern before assuming someone is willfully irrational.

Be aware of your own biases. We all have things we’d like to be true, and we’re more easily persuaded that they’re true than that they’re false. Something that sounds irrational to you may be something you haven’t considered all aspects of.

Take your time and consider whether something is really nonsense or could be worth pondering after all. But if you’re sure, then go after it!