|
|
4:46 p.m. - 2020-07-31 WHO is speaking or reporting? Is the author a recognized expert in the field? What are their credentials, if any? If reporting on science, are they a science reporter with relevant education and experience, or someone with little or no background. Is the report thoughtful and skeptical, or just a repetition of a talking point or release from a public relations department? Is there a conflict of interest, stated or otherwise? Does the reporter have a history of "siding" with one political party or another? Celebrities are not experts. A game show host or former NFL quarterback might not be well informed on matters like finance, life insurance, or health care. If the celebrity "trusts" a company, is he or she accepting reimbursement for that statement? In that case, isn't he or she just an employee of the company or product he claims to trust? Experts are not necessarily experts in fields other than their own. An economist can have opinions on medical matters, but it's just an opinion, not an expert one, and not equivalent in value to that of someone in the health field. Friends are not necessarily experts, either. When you see a Facebook post from someone you trust, ask yourself if you trust that person to be infallible or just honest. If you're inclined to believe a friend without checking his facts, isn't the same likely to be true of that friend? Where does the chain of trust end? Where did the facts come from in the first place? I've seen any number of posts from friends and family that didn't hold up to even a quick online double check of facts and sources. In a democracy one opinion is just as good as another, but not necessarily as accurate as another. We are all free to think what we want and speak as we please, but we also have the duty to investigate the "facts" put before us. Doubting someone else's statements is not the same as calling them a liar. They can be honest but falsely informed. They can be wrong without being evil. Disagreement is not an accusation. You shouldn't hesitate to cross check any statement with sources that you trust for thoroughness and accuracy. WHEN was the statement made? Recently one of my Facebook friends posted a Covid story that was three months old. It represented the science of the time, but our knowledge of the virus is still developing, and three months is a long time in an evolving situation. WHERE did you find the statement? Twitter? Facebook? An email from a "trusted" friend? Can it be traced to a recognized authority or a respected publication? If it's from a scientific journal, is there a link to the original article? Does the quote represent the real intention of the authors? Is the journal a real publication, or "research" published by a company trying to sell you something? HOW is the information presented? If a scientific article, has it been through the peer review process, or is it what is called a "preliminary publication"? What do the authors think of their own evidence. Do they qualify their findings in any way? Scientists usually choose their words carefully and make very precisely restricted statements. Unfortunately these narrow statements become much broader and bolder when "translated" into everyday speech by private citizens or the media. Simple declarative sentences are generally better received and more likely to be quoted than the more circumspect utterances of scientists and academics. Does the statement or story evoke a strong emotion in you? Does it seem too good to be true? Does it validate your prejudices? Does the conclusion grow beyond the facts on which it is based? Does it appeal to patriotism or religion either through words or symbols? We can all be fooled easily either by our own gullibility or by posts, images, and memes carefully crafted to get our attention and sympathy. It's going to happen, especially in our present media-based culture, but we can try to minimize our vulnerability to misleading arguments with a little fact checking and critical thinking.
|