Is There Any "There" There? 🧐: Part 1

📊 Type of Evidence

🗣️ Anecdotal/Testimonial:
Personal stories that illustrate a point but are not systematically collected
Screenshots of personal experiences, user narratives, one-off examples.
Very common because storytelling is quick, compelling, and shareable.
Can be very persuasive but provide very limited evidence.

👨‍🔬 Expert Opinion:
Info from recognized authority in a particular field
Name-dropping (e.g., "Dr. X said…") or linking to an expert thread/video.
Can be strong if expert is relevant and credible; weaker if appeal is superficial.

📊 Survey or Poll Data:
Info gathered by asking questions to sample of people
Often informal (Twitter/X, Instagram polls) rather than methodologically rigorous.
Consider whether poll is representative or just platform-native sampling.

📈 Observational or Correlational Study:
Research that examines real-world setting, often how things relate to each other
Researchers track real-world behaviors to see patterns.
Proceed carefully with this evidence. Consider methodology used.
Research Example: Following 10,000 adults for 5 years, those who drink coffee regularly show a 15% lower risk of depression, but other lifestyle factors aren’t controlled.

🧪 Experimental or Controlled Study:
Research where scientists control & change variables to see what causes what
Researchers assign people to groups and control variables to test cause-and-effect.
Often considered “gold standard” for research when done well.
Research Example: 500 adults are randomly assigned to drink 2 cups of coffee daily or none for 6 months. Researchers then measure changes in depression symptoms across groups while holding other factors constant (age, gender, diet, etc.).

📑 Official Statistics or Documentary Evidence:
Data published by recognized authorities or institutions
Screenshots of government reports, election results, WHO/CDC numbers, etc.
Among strongest forms of evidence in social media, but watch for cherry-picking.

❓ Questions to Guide Us

There are three critical factors: evidence type, factual accuracy, and context.

• 📊 Type of Evidence: Category and strength of supporting info

  • Is it an anecdote, expert opinion, survey data, etc.?

  • Is methodology behind evidence sound and appropriate?

• 🔎 Factual Accuracy: Correctness of info presented

  • Are facts, figures, and claims verifiably true?

  • Any misrepresentations, exaggerations, or distortions?

  • Can claims be cross-verified with independent sources?

• 📚 Context: Completeness of info shared

  • Does post acknowledge any limitations or alternative viewpoints?

  • Is crucial context missing that would change our understanding?

  • Does post point to more comprehensive info (e.g. links)?

Now we're ready!

Critical thinking is the foundation for confident, resilient problem-solvers.

🔍 Twella Toolkit: Use Evidence🚦

• 🔴 Weak Evidence

  • Based solely on anecdotes, opinions, or vague claims without sources.

  • Contains significant factual errors or presents one-sided views.

  • Uses extreme language that overstates findings or conclusions.

  • Lacks transparency about methods, limitations, or data sources.

• 🟡 Moderate Evidence

  • Draws from surveys, polls, expert opinions with some reference to sources.

  • Contains mostly accurate info with minor simplifications.

  • Acknowledges some limitations and provides partial context.

  • Includes references or links to more detailed info.

• 🟢 Strong Evidence

  • References credible research, official statistics, or comprehensive data.

  • Contains accurate, properly contextualized info despite brevity.

  • Acknowledges complexity, distinguishes between facts and interpretations.

  • Includes appropriate context or links to more comprehensive info.

🧪 Practical Example—Spotlight on YouTube

You see a YouTube video. The video includes persuasive graphics, but let’s just look at evidence for now. The main claim is presented right away: Using a microwave lowers nutrients compared to other types of cooking.

Let's use the Evidence🚦.

 📊 Type of Evidence

• What kind of evidence is this?
  Anecdote, expert opinion, survey, research study, or official statistics?

• Is a study or source actually cited?
  Or is it just numbers thrown out without context?

• Does the format match the strength of the claim?
  Big % numbers should come from real studies, not just someone talking.

WEAK 🔴: Just “expert opinion”. No citations to specific studies or research.

 🔎 Factual Accuracy

• Do the numbers seem oddly precise (e.g., “96–100%” nutrient loss)?
  If so, ask: where did those numbers come from?

• Are the claims too sweeping?
  All foods, all nutrients, one cooking method always better?

🔎WEAK 🔴: Precise numerical claims (96-100% nutrient loss) with no food or nutrient specified.

📚 Context

• Is key context missing?
  Which nutrient? Which food? How long cooked? Water vs. dry heat?

• Does it compare fairly?
  Steaming vs. microwaving depends on how you do each.

• Is the claim balanced?
  Does the post admit limitations or say “it depends”?

WEAK 🔴: Overlooks how nutrient retention depends on time, water, and food type, making the steaming comparison misleading.

Summary: No “there” (evidence) there 🔴
Post lacks specificity and scientific context. Can stop here!

🔍 Remember: You often don’t need to be a content expert to spot weak evidence. A quick scan with the three prompts helps you quickly sift through countless social media claims.

And avoid going down rabbit holes 🐇

Spot the "no ‘there’ there" posts in seconds! 🦸‍♀️

💡 Bonus: Claims Masquerading as Evidence!

It’s not always easy to tell the difference between a claim and evidence.

In this microwave example, the main claim is clear: using a microwave lowers nutrients compared to other types of cooking.

But what about these follow-up statements?

• “Microwaving can reduce nutrients from 5 to 40% or more depending on cooking time.”

• “Microwaving for 60 seconds can inactivate key phytonutrients from 96 to 100%.”

• “Steaming only reduces nutrients by 11% (compared to microwaving).”

At first glance, they look like evidence (because they use numbers).
But without sources, methods, or context, they are really just additional claims dressed up as evidence.

👉 Key Lesson: Numbers don’t automatically equal evidence. Always ask:

• Where did this information come from?

• How do we know it’s accurate?

🔖 Resource Worth Sharing

FullFact.Org.Health is an independent fact-checking organization that examines health claims and provides evidence-based analysis in accessible language to help consumers identify accurate health information.

🌊 Ready to dive in? 

Challenge: Ask "Is there any “there” there?" during your next social media scrolling session. Do a Quick Scan with the evidence🚦for 3 posts that catch your attention. What do you notice?

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Connect & Share! 

Thanks for joining me on this journey!

If you have questions, stories, or suggestions for future topics, just hit reply—I’d love to hear from you.

Feel free to share this post with fellow educators, parents, or anyone committed to thinking well in a noisy world.

And if this ever stops being your thing, unsubscribe anytime—no hard feelings. 

To ThinkingWell together!

James