During the 2012 presidential election campaign, there was a memorably amusing moment at the first debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. As they both quibbled over whose grand plan would save the country and launch us into a new age of American prosperity, Obama decided to tag science into the ring; he claimed to have a study which proved that his plan would be successful. With well-rehearsed ease, Romney quickly retorted that he had six studies to disprove the president's.

On both sidelines, each candidate's committed partisan voters felt confident and at ease-economics and the social sciences were on their side. These partisans, happily vindicated, paraded the existence of their side's studies to anyone who would listen; they would be powerful cudgels in their heated dinner table battles of red versus blue. 

Meanwhile, the undecided voters gained nothing from the exchange, other than perhaps a vague uneasiness about whether this would complicate their choice further. They continued to trudge forward in tentative confusion, refusing to accept fully either side of the story, muttering that "these studies nowadays can prove anything." 

In all likelihood, very few viewers ever went to check up on these studies. It is even more likely that neither candidate knew or cared what the contents of the studies were. This exchange between the presidential candidates is but one high-profile case of an epidemic of title-citing that now takes place in lieu of genuine analysis of science. 

For rhetorical purposes, it has become enough simply to point to the cover page of a study, and rely on the public's faith that the contents of such a study are honest and correct.
It is commonplace to hear arguments made by pundits which, instead of elucidating some scientific fact learned from a study, simply point to the study as an argument in itself. Obviously, this opens the door to trickery from anyone who can take a title out of context.

A similar example of this phenomenon in politics is the recent controversy surrounding driving safety in Colorado, which recently legalized recreational marijuana. A series of conflicting stories came out discussing the dangers of 'high driving.' One notable story, published by CBS Seattle, offered a headline of "Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled." 

The story cited one study from the American Journal of Epidemiology, which claims that one in nine fatal car crashes involve a driver who would test positive for marijuana-and no other significant contents from the study. Conspicuously absent is the fact that a person can test positive for marijuana for months after ingestion.
In both cases, the public discussion ignores the methodology of the studies and whether or not they satisfactorily prove a point. Instead, it is fueled primarily by the titles of the articles and quoted remarks from the scientists involved. 

In the case of the presidential election, little attention is paid to the studies outside of the mere fact of their existence. A critical eye is never applied to the science itself.
Both controversies were shrugged off, like most studies, because few readers bother to read further than the titles. When all scientific studies are reduced to the claim in their title, it is no wonder that people believe that "anyone can prove anything." This growing mentality of chronic skepticism is a disease which is festering deep in the American psyche.

The logical conclusion of this mentality can best be illustrated by observing a crucial implication of the notion that "anything can be proven." If anything can be proven, and "anything" includes the false and the misleading, then it follows that fiction can be proven. This negates the meaning and value of proof, and the sum in the mind of anyone who accepts the first idea will be that nothing can be proven.

Such a toxic idea is an agent of mental paralysis. After taking hold, it acts as a yoke on the mind of those who unwittingly accept it, and restrains analytical thinking. As a result, it prepares them to be led obediently into all sorts of deceit by any demagogue with sufficiently manipulative rhetoric. It helps to create the sort of mentality that gleefully accepts anything which validates their blurry view of reality, and recoils with anger and outright hostility toward any idea that presents a fundamental challenge.

The disease begins with the acceptance of a seemingly innocuous idea that experts are not to be questioned by non-experts, and should be trusted. 

After all, they spend their whole life studying a topic-how could anyone of lesser expertise question them? While intimidating, this emotionally loaded argument exploits a combination of naivet?(c) and intellectual humility that provides the exact opposite of a proper approach to dealing with factual disputes in any sort of debate.

Imagine if jurors in a courtroom approached a murder case with the same sort of skeptical humility. If the prosecution and the defense brought conflicting expert witnesses, the court would immediately be faced with a hung jury. Since the jurors are not experts, they would have no way of discerning who is telling the truth.

Yet, such a scenario is ridiculous, and it is equally ridiculous when applied to any individual caught between two conflicting claims. Any such person should have confidence in his or her own mental efficacy and approach all claims as an honest juror would: with a critical, impartial eye and an active mind. 

Evaluate the science and hold the scientists accountable; read the studies themselves. The only cure for our current plague is for each of us to take individual initiative and exhibit a juror's willingness to make an independent judgment.