As any scientist will tell you, even the most widely accepted theories and laws are still subject to some level of doubt and cynicism. However, that does not mean that we should not act on those theories and laws as if they were true – because chances are, they are true. The study discussed in “The Dying Russians” is interesting because it proposes an explanation for a phenomenon that while plausible, can not possibly be proven. Eberstadt draws his conclusions based on the evidence made available to him, and in some ways it is deductive. For example, his first hypothesis was that “Russians are dying due to infectious diseases.” He then refuted this hypothesis upon looking at the statistics and finding that the death rate due to infectious diseases is relatively as would be expected. He then proceeded to the next possible explanation, and searched for evidence that either refuted or supported the next hypothesis. The problem with this method is that once you have found a hypothesis that you like, it is easy to pick and choose evidence that supports your hypothesis while underplaying or ignoring the evidence that does not. The conclusion that Russians are dying of a “broken heart” is supported by evidence, but Eberstadt was actively looking for that evidence, and might not have been looking quite as hard for evidence that countered his theory.

However, there is something that feels right about this conclusion. It just makes sense. And I think that at a certain point you have to put trust in the academic integrity of political scientists in order to glean any value from their work. No conclusion will ever be completely bulletproof, but if something is most likely true, I think that it is okay to act on that belief as if it were true. This is the only way to learn and build on previous knowledge and experiences.