Further reading on reputation and trust of information sources from another Aeon essay: https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult
The problem is that these questions have subjective answers and can just as readily be used to support fake news as real news. For example, one might trust a source precisely because they are...
Whenever we are at the point of accepting or rejecting new information, we should ask ourselves: Where does it come from? Does the source have a good reputation? Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities?
The problem is that these questions have subjective answers and can just as readily be used to support fake news as real news.
For example, one might trust a source precisely because they are supposedly revealing the truth that official authorities are hiding, and possibly at great personal cost. There's precedent for this in journalists uncovering corruption in high places, with leaders denying or even suppressing those reports. Who's to say that the person telling us that we didn't go to the Moon isn't another of these brave journalist types?
Relying too heavily on the reputation of our sources can leave us open to being misled by people who are mistaken, or even being lied to. We still need to make at least some effort to evaluate the facts for ourselves.
I totally agree, it was a nice article but seriously, I shouldn't seek out facts? What the hell. Also, it relied on trusting media outlets to tell the truth. All media have agendas, all lean...
I totally agree, it was a nice article but seriously, I shouldn't seek out facts? What the hell. Also, it relied on trusting media outlets to tell the truth. All media have agendas, all lean right, left or centrist and also some that have a high reputation - say the Washington Post - have been mouthpieces for the CIA for years. A lot of what we hear from the traditional media is controlled and shaped, so how did we know what the real truth of the matter is? I honestly think we can't anymore, it is a war of information and the battlefield is made confusing by purpose.
In an ideal world, everyone would be able to independently confirm or deny the truth of everything we read and hear, but the reality is we have to rely on the media to some extent. We (the general...
I shouldn't seek out facts? What the hell.
In an ideal world, everyone would be able to independently confirm or deny the truth of everything we read and hear, but the reality is we have to rely on the media to some extent. We (the general public) do not have access to university libraries and their wealth of knowledge available through journal memberships, and even if we did, we wouldn't know enough about the subject matter to determine if a study is flawed or biased in some way. Plus, independently confirming the truth of every situation (or if you are the center of a scandal, answering millions of phone calls and emails from people finding out the truth) would take so much of our time we wouldn't do anything else in our lives. That's not to say you shouldn't seek out facts, but that seeking them out everywhere can be time consuming. It's usually ok to take what others say at face value, though this depends a lot on their reputation.
the Washington Post - have been mouthpieces for the CIA for years
Got any sources for this? Sounds interesting.
A lot of what we hear from the traditional media is controlled and shaped, so how did we know what the real truth of the matter is?
Personally, I find the alternative (media) to be much worse in terms of fact checking, maintaining neutrality, and not publishing inflammatory clickbait headlines. That's not to say this doesn't happen with the mainstream media (just look at Fox News), but the MSM tends to be a lot better than "skeptic"/"alternative" sources.
The studies are publicly available. I can read them for myself. I might not be able to run the studies myself, but I can read and interpret the data from other people's studies, rather than...
His examples were very clearly related to things that you wouldn't reasonably be able to conclude on your own about (like vaccines and autism).
The studies are publicly available. I can read them for myself. I might not be able to run the studies myself, but I can read and interpret the data from other people's studies, rather than relying on other people to interpret them for me.
You also can spend months reading related studies in the field such that you have the proper context and knowledge to fully understand the merit or potential flaws of the study, all in aim of...
I can read them for myself. I might not be able to run the studies myself, but I can read and interpret the data from other people's studies, rather than relying on other people to interpret them for me.
You also can spend months reading related studies in the field such that you have the proper context and knowledge to fully understand the merit or potential flaws of the study, all in aim of correctly interpreting it... But unless you're one of those people who has many advanced degrees, it seems impractical
You cant trust reputation even. You HAVE to do the work yourself. "Who funded this study/research?" "Do they have an agenda to push from the results?" "How does this study compare to others...
You cant trust reputation even. You HAVE to do the work yourself.
"Who funded this study/research?"
"Do they have an agenda to push from the results?"
"How does this study compare to others similar in nature (and who were those studies done by)?"
I get that post people dont either have the time or the desire to look this stuff up but its important.
Research regularly gets debunked ( true scientists/researchers WANT to be prove wrong ) but if the new answer isnt convenient to business or someones agenda its ignored.
Hm. Technology just amplifies what we do anyway, but I don't see anyone claiming we should just abandon civilization because it "obviously" didn't work out. Right now our filters and tech create a...
Hm. Technology just amplifies what we do anyway, but I don't see anyone claiming we should just abandon civilization because it "obviously" didn't work out.
Right now our filters and tech create a bad ecosystem, but that's something this very site aims to fix.
This is an insightful thing to point out, but I'm not convinced that this is a new phenomenon. Was there really ever an "information age" when people did all their own primary research?
This is an insightful thing to point out, but I'm not convinced that this is a new phenomenon. Was there really ever an "information age" when people did all their own primary research?
Further reading on reputation and trust of information sources from another Aeon essay: https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult
The problem is that these questions have subjective answers and can just as readily be used to support fake news as real news.
For example, one might trust a source precisely because they are supposedly revealing the truth that official authorities are hiding, and possibly at great personal cost. There's precedent for this in journalists uncovering corruption in high places, with leaders denying or even suppressing those reports. Who's to say that the person telling us that we didn't go to the Moon isn't another of these brave journalist types?
Relying too heavily on the reputation of our sources can leave us open to being misled by people who are mistaken, or even being lied to. We still need to make at least some effort to evaluate the facts for ourselves.
I totally agree, it was a nice article but seriously, I shouldn't seek out facts? What the hell. Also, it relied on trusting media outlets to tell the truth. All media have agendas, all lean right, left or centrist and also some that have a high reputation - say the Washington Post - have been mouthpieces for the CIA for years. A lot of what we hear from the traditional media is controlled and shaped, so how did we know what the real truth of the matter is? I honestly think we can't anymore, it is a war of information and the battlefield is made confusing by purpose.
Re: WaPo being a CIA mouthpiece - I'd like to learn more about that, if you have reading recommendations.
I'm at work, I'll see if I can find it later!
In an ideal world, everyone would be able to independently confirm or deny the truth of everything we read and hear, but the reality is we have to rely on the media to some extent. We (the general public) do not have access to university libraries and their wealth of knowledge available through journal memberships, and even if we did, we wouldn't know enough about the subject matter to determine if a study is flawed or biased in some way. Plus, independently confirming the truth of every situation (or if you are the center of a scandal, answering millions of phone calls and emails from people finding out the truth) would take so much of our time we wouldn't do anything else in our lives. That's not to say you shouldn't seek out facts, but that seeking them out everywhere can be time consuming. It's usually ok to take what others say at face value, though this depends a lot on their reputation.
Got any sources for this? Sounds interesting.
Personally, I find the alternative (media) to be much worse in terms of fact checking, maintaining neutrality, and not publishing inflammatory clickbait headlines. That's not to say this doesn't happen with the mainstream media (just look at Fox News), but the MSM tends to be a lot better than "skeptic"/"alternative" sources.
The studies are publicly available. I can read them for myself. I might not be able to run the studies myself, but I can read and interpret the data from other people's studies, rather than relying on other people to interpret them for me.
You also can spend months reading related studies in the field such that you have the proper context and knowledge to fully understand the merit or potential flaws of the study, all in aim of correctly interpreting it... But unless you're one of those people who has many advanced degrees, it seems impractical
related reddit discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/8y00f3/
You cant trust reputation even. You HAVE to do the work yourself.
"Who funded this study/research?"
"Do they have an agenda to push from the results?"
"How does this study compare to others similar in nature (and who were those studies done by)?"
I get that post people dont either have the time or the desire to look this stuff up but its important.
Research regularly gets debunked ( true scientists/researchers WANT to be prove wrong ) but if the new answer isnt convenient to business or someones agenda its ignored.
Hm. Technology just amplifies what we do anyway, but I don't see anyone claiming we should just abandon civilization because it "obviously" didn't work out.
Right now our filters and tech create a bad ecosystem, but that's something this very site aims to fix.
This is an insightful thing to point out, but I'm not convinced that this is a new phenomenon. Was there really ever an "information age" when people did all their own primary research?