How to evaluate whether your source is credible or not
How to evaluate whether your source is credible or not
READ IT ALL FIRST before you pull things out of contexts.
Ok. I'm doing you all (most of you anyway) a favor so pay attention.
Most people pick sources that are bad. I can seriously find anything on the internet so chances are if someone said "I believe George Bush is a reptile" they can find something on it.
I thought to myself one day, "oh hell no, this can't be, reptile? Maybe I can google and see why he thinks that." Lo and behold, David Icke. Now, before anyone bash David Icke, David Icke is a very good man and he believes the things he talks about.
Are they farfetched? Yes. Are they true? No, probably not. But at least he believes it and he is sincere about it. I would try and persuade him otherwise if I could meet him.
The point is (and do NOT talk about David Icke, some of you like to get offtopic in any given particular discussion, start another thread about this man, just not here), you can find anything on the internet.
There is a reason why the internet is not a good place to look for information. First of all, anyone can sign up for a geocities or youtube account. Second of all, anyone with enough time can create false information such as disinformation (for example, credible source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation). I will explain how wiki is a credible source in a sec just take it for now.
There are a few written-in-the-stone rules. First, obviously. You absolutely must know how to think critically. That's another topic, I started a discussion here - http://forum.here/showthread.php?t=4097353
That is product of critical thinking by the way. It might seem harsh that I am attacking another man, I'm not. It's knowing who is doing what and where it's coming from.
Second, common sense. I know that half the misc posters wouldn't know when to breathe unless the misc told them to. Which is sad. But... I... I am going to assume I don't have to teach that. Ok?... Ok.
Third, you must be able to read, not ask for cliff's note. If you can't read 3-4 pages of articles, how the hell are you going to read books? I don't understand. Books is everything. I love reading. Reading > everything. Even sex. I can get more sex by reading than I can without it. I met my gf when I was reading at the library. She rocks.
Fourth, be on constant alert. Whether you are religious or not, keep in mind, there is always a possibility you are wrong. If you do a search on me you'll know I'm a businessman. Keep this in mind - as a businessman, I can be wrong about anything at any given time despite the facts that I know. Today's truth can be tomorrow's bullshit. You absolutely must know this. I remember admitting to be wrong in the RP forum when I earlier posted and someone said "wow, someone admitting he's wrong? Did hell just freeze over?" No it didn't, it's being honest. Learn to admit when you are wrong and learn to be humble over that. Hell, even writing this I'm sure there'll be a few mistakes.
I think that's it. Critical thinking, common sense, read lots of books, vigilance.
Ok here's the meat. How to evaluate whether your source is credible or not.
Well, you find out by looking at the source's author. Who is he? Then what is his background? Is the company reliable or not? If you do a search on me, you'll find I posted in one of the few stock thread. In that very stock thread in the misc (not RP) some people put their entire life saving in a penny stock that had no company PR, absolutely nada. Just hype. Whenever I look at a company I want to invest in, I would look at the PR first. I don't invest in stock but I do invest in other securities. The principle is the same.
Is the author discussing the same thing? For example, when you read, is he trying to sell you something? Is he talking about other issues as well? I have read investors bash other investors yet tries to sell books of his own. Happens. I also the very same investors sell books on other irrelevant topics like baseball and motivational and how to succeed (for example, John T. Reed, the very same man who claims Robert Kiyosaki doesn't reveal his father's name, yet he doesn't name his wife or son's name, now I don't like RK or JTR but that's another topic, here is an EXAMPLE, strictly that, don't go offtopic).
Is there bias? Always always always look for articles, writings, etcetc with the least bias as possible. You want an article that is able to stand against the test of time, able to stand against criticism. For example, watch "Root of All Evil?" by Richard Dawkins, the reason why that man is extremely credible and reliable source of info is because he is able to stand against the test of time with his knowledge and arguments.
The others resorts to cursing, screaming, even resorting to kicking Richard Dawkins out of their sight by calling the police. Now, before religious folks get mad, LISTEN to me first. Syriankid might be a good source of religious info. But he's a Muslim (correct me if I'm wrong).
So Christians or Buddhists or whoever better find their own version of Syriankid. I say this because Syriankid generally doesn't find stupid source and quotes strictly (at least from what I've seen) his Quran. Is the Quran the best source of info? Better than using someone from youtube as source. Try to find source that is least bias, the more bias you are, the more easily deconstructable your source is.
Are the source authentic? Saying things like "ten billion Iraqis died because of US presence" or "Hitler didn't murder Jews" is subject to criticism and review. You would have to show us source. And if your source is www.angelfire.com/whathitlerdid.html, it loses credibility.
Here's why. Your source absolutely must have a site dedicated to the very topic he is discussing. ESPECIALLY a serious topic like this one. You don't go to a body-building site to discuss how to paint a beautiful art. You type in and expect to know how to lift weight to better improve your body. Therefore if I was to look for art tutorials, I expect not to see .
Are the source verifiable? Biggest question of all. Most source are not verifiable. Which is why the internet... not so reliable. In my forum 110% of my source on the sticky in the forum (do a search on me for my nazi mod forum question) were verifiable. We enforced verifiability so no mistakes can be made. There are exceptions as to whether a source can be verified or not. I have seen it. But for most case, it had better be from reliable source. Like AP news. http://www.ap.org/
Now for example. This is where we get to why wiki is a credible source.
Because wiki is community based, not individual based. You can edit things there, but the moment you do, it is subjected to analysis, criticism, review, etcetc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
There's a editing policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...and_guidelines
So you can't say Hitler didn't kill Jews unless you had credible source to begin with. Otherwise your article will be set to be removed or edited. Try it. Edit a page after you register for an account. Watch what happens. The minute they get to your page, it will be subjected to change.
Are the article consistent? Trust me, reading a writing and seeing porno ad gives the article less credibility. Not because the women aren't beautiful but because it is probably a heavily advertised site and is nothing more than hoping you would click on it (pay per click) or buy their stuff. What you want is a reliable site that gives info on the related site.
Example. http://www.zenguide.com/
Don't like zen? Too bad, but that site is a great example of advertisement RELATED to the topic at hand. I like that and that gives it credibility because it also shows that the author is not afraid of criticism and can look for other source/authors for different point of view.
Remember, NOONE is perfect and will ever agree 100% with you but you can get close.
Does the article offer contact info? Yep, this is important, if I see something on the site you give me that I don't like, I want to be able to contact the author. I talk to some people on this forum in PM on a regular basis and hear their thoughts.
Some are smart, others.. not so much. Especially when you get replies the next morning like "just listen to me you r-tard or I'll kick your ass! I'm always right! Why do you have to ruin all this for me!??" I want contact info.
Now remember, there are always exceptions but most of the time, the author should be reachable. Sure Richard Dawkins isn't easily reached but there are other closer ones. It's called six degrees of separation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation) so start networking. Find out why Richard would want to meet you and get going.
I have met two or three famous people in my life. Two are book author. One is Donald Trump. I learned a lot from them. Donald Trump I just merely shook hand after I told him I was a big fan. Did I get much more after that? No but I learned enough by watching him talk, walk, etcetc.
Networking is another subject. Point is, for MOST people, esp most of you bastards using bad source, most of these source better have authors that are reachable, especially if they are unheard of or not famous.
Can you verify the credibility of the author? This goes back to the first one. Listen, if the author claims to have a Ph.D, find out in what, what college, etcetc. Because I am seriously going to call their college to verify this. I have actually done this and found quite a few liars.
It's not hard to give yourself "Doctorate of Spirituality in New Age" of whatever. This is why fans of the "The Secret" would be disappointed because half the "scientists" in there have no credibility other than the fact they have written books. Now, there are a few good ones, like the author of Chicken Soup for the Heart, but the rest are just... slimey. Use your own judgement.
Be a skeptic. If you're on this site you can afford the dictionary. Start here: http://skepdic.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Dicti.../dp/0471272426
I bought this book and gave it to a few church members. Talk about angry mobs.
Again, last one and this one should be repeated: are they selling you something? Notice the background or the author's background for his site. Is he trying his best to sell you something? If so, it damages his credibility as to what he has to say! I'm talking about bait and switch here.
There are more but these are the hard rules. Remember, you can never be too critical of truth and the pursuit of it. Always find out the truth, always pursue, always do your best in life and you will go far.
And go http://www.plagiarism.org!!! Too many plagiarizer out there.
Note: I didn't proofread it yet so DON'T criticize my spelling, grammar, don't nitpick. It retards the discussion and is irrelevant. I'm also going to report anyone who just types "I stopped at here cause it's not true" especially if you don't add anything constructive. I want this to be helpful.
And don't bother doing some kind of background search on me, I have no intention on banking off you and just want to help. So don't PM me about how to get rich quick, the only way to get rich quick is through very hard work.
/enjoy
I didn't make any claims, just have fun. :D Off to lunch I go.
Great couple of posts. I really liked your stuff on disinformation. Here is some related material I posted in a thread awhile back that took a skeptical look at things.
In Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things he lists some tactics of pseudoscience. Even though he is talking about the holocaust denial movement, he describes the tactics as "eerily similar" to other groups.
1. They concentrate on their opponents weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
2. They exploit errors made by scholars and imply since some of their conclusions may have been wrong, they all are.
3. They make use of out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists.
4. The mistake honest debate over the details in a particular field as a sign of weakness of the entire field.
5. They focus on the unknown and ignore what is known.
I also recently read about some research into Chiropractors who reject germ theory and vaccinations. The tactics are similar to what Shermer noted, but they deserve mention.
1. They doubt the science. Basically they claim the science to support what goes against their personal beliefs isn't good enough, no matter what the amount of evidence is.
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists. This is common in pseudoscience as many people believe there is a huge conspiracy among scientists to further some secret goal. For instance, the claim that climatologists who study global warming are in it for the money and are trying to bring socialism to the US is a serious claim, backed up by poor evidence, usually quotes.
3. Magnify disagreements and cite gadflies as authorities. This is similar to Shermer's number four tactic. The citing of Gadflies is where someone ignores 99% of all scientists in one field but accept the one that supports their personal beliefs.
4. Exaggerate potential harm. This is like when creationists claim that teaching evolution in schools will lead to violence, which once again, is not supported by any good evidence.
5. Appeal to personal freedom. To use creationists as an example again, this is similar to when they want the schools to teach religion in science class and "let the students decide." Of course they usually only want their religion taught and no others.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. This is when someone refuses to accept something, no matter how much evidence there is, because it will destroy their personal beliefs. For instance, germ theory deniers will not accept the fact that disease is caused by germs because it goes against their belief that disease is caused by other factors. The amount of evidence is irrelevant to these people. They are True Believers.
Great posts guys. This should be stickied.
i didnt read everything. But i like what i did read!!
Great posts guys. This should be stickied. x2
x2 x3
Sticky this please. this will benifit alot of people on these boards
My favourite is when people say "it's well known amongst scholars"
My favourite is when people say "it's well known amongst scholars" Yes the problem is often getting the information to the masses. Most scholarly subjects can be understood with just a little bit of effort, but sometimes it is hard to know where to start. And the Internet has so much garbage on it I am wary of a site unless I know it is legitimate.
READ IT ALL FIRST before you pull things out of contexts.
Ok. I'm doing you all (most of you anyway) a favor so pay attention.
Most people pick sources that are bad. I can seriously find anything on the internet so chances are if someone said "I believe George Bush is a reptile" they can find something on it.
I thought to myself one day, "oh hell no, this can't be, reptile? Maybe I can google and see why he thinks that." Lo and behold, David Icke. Now, before anyone bash David Icke, David Icke is a very good man and he believes the things he talks about.
Are they farfetched? Yes. Are they true? No, probably not. But at least he believes it and he is sincere about it. I would try and persuade him otherwise if I could meet him.
The point is (and do NOT talk about David Icke, some of you like to get offtopic in any given particular discussion, start another thread about this man, just not here), you can find anything on the internet.
There is a reason why the internet is not a good place to look for information. First of all, anyone can sign up for a geocities or youtube account. Second of all, anyone with enough time can create false information such as disinformation (for example, credible source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation). I will explain how wiki is a credible source in a sec just take it for now.
There are a few written-in-the-stone rules. First, obviously. You absolutely must know how to think critically. That's another topic, I started a discussion here - http://forum.here/showthread.php?t=4097353
That is product of critical thinking by the way. It might seem harsh that I am attacking another man, I'm not. It's knowing who is doing what and where it's coming from.
Second, common sense. I know that half the misc posters wouldn't know when to breathe unless the misc told them to. Which is sad. But... I... I am going to assume I don't have to teach that. Ok?... Ok.
Third, you must be able to read, not ask for cliff's note. If you can't read 3-4 pages of articles, how the hell are you going to read books? I don't understand. Books is everything. I love reading. Reading > everything. Even sex. I can get more sex by reading than I can without it. I met my gf when I was reading at the library. She rocks.
Fourth, be on constant alert. Whether you are religious or not, keep in mind, there is always a possibility you are wrong. If you do a search on me you'll know I'm a businessman. Keep this in mind - as a businessman, I can be wrong about anything at any given time despite the facts that I know. Today's truth can be tomorrow's bullshit. You absolutely must know this. I remember admitting to be wrong in the RP forum when I earlier posted and someone said "wow, someone admitting he's wrong? Did hell just freeze over?" No it didn't, it's being honest. Learn to admit when you are wrong and learn to be humble over that. Hell, even writing this I'm sure there'll be a few mistakes.
I think that's it. Critical thinking, common sense, read lots of books, vigilance.
Ok here's the meat. How to evaluate whether your source is credible or not.
Well, you find out by looking at the source's author. Who is he? Then what is his background? Is the company reliable or not? If you do a search on me, you'll find I posted in one of the few stock thread. In that very stock thread in the misc (not RP) some people put their entire life saving in a penny stock that had no company PR, absolutely nada. Just hype. Whenever I look at a company I want to invest in, I would look at the PR first. I don't invest in stock but I do invest in other securities. The principle is the same.
Is the author discussing the same thing? For example, when you read, is he trying to sell you something? Is he talking about other issues as well? I have read investors bash other investors yet tries to sell books of his own. Happens. I also the very same investors sell books on other irrelevant topics like baseball and motivational and how to succeed (for example, John T. Reed, the very same man who claims Robert Kiyosaki doesn't reveal his father's name, yet he doesn't name his wife or son's name, now I don't like RK or JTR but that's another topic, here is an EXAMPLE, strictly that, don't go offtopic).
Is there bias? Always always always look for articles, writings, etcetc with the least bias as possible. You want an article that is able to stand against the test of time, able to stand against criticism. For example, watch "Root of All Evil?" by Richard Dawkins, the reason why that man is extremely credible and reliable source of info is because he is able to stand against the test of time with his knowledge and arguments.
The others resorts to cursing, screaming, even resorting to kicking Richard Dawkins out of their sight by calling the police. Now, before religious folks get mad, LISTEN to me first. Syriankid might be a good source of religious info. But he's a Muslim (correct me if I'm wrong).
So Christians or Buddhists or whoever better find their own version of Syriankid. I say this because Syriankid generally doesn't find stupid source and quotes strictly (at least from what I've seen) his Quran. Is the Quran the best source of info? Better than using someone from youtube as source. Try to find source that is least bias, the more bias you are, the more easily deconstructable your source is.
Are the source authentic? Saying things like "ten billion Iraqis died because of US presence" or "Hitler didn't murder Jews" is subject to criticism and review. You would have to show us source. And if your source is www.angelfire.com/whathitlerdid.html, it loses credibility.
Here's why. Your source absolutely must have a site dedicated to the very topic he is discussing. ESPECIALLY a serious topic like this one. You don't go to a body-building site to discuss how to paint a beautiful art. You type in and expect to know how to lift weight to better improve your body. Therefore if I was to look for art tutorials, I expect not to see .
Are the source verifiable? Biggest question of all. Most source are not verifiable. Which is why the internet... not so reliable. In my forum 110% of my source on the sticky in the forum (do a search on me for my nazi mod forum question) were verifiable. We enforced verifiability so no mistakes can be made. There are exceptions as to whether a source can be verified or not. I have seen it. But for most case, it had better be from reliable source. Like AP news. http://www.ap.org/
Now for example. This is where we get to why wiki is a credible source.
Because wiki is community based, not individual based. You can edit things there, but the moment you do, it is subjected to analysis, criticism, review, etcetc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About
There's a editing policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...and_guidelines
So you can't say Hitler didn't kill Jews unless you had credible source to begin with. Otherwise your article will be set to be removed or edited. Try it. Edit a page after you register for an account. Watch what happens. The minute they get to your page, it will be subjected to change.
Are the article consistent? Trust me, reading a writing and seeing porno ad gives the article less credibility. Not because the women aren't beautiful but because it is probably a heavily advertised site and is nothing more than hoping you would click on it (pay per click) or buy their stuff. What you want is a reliable site that gives info on the related site.
Example. http://www.zenguide.com/
Don't like zen? Too bad, but that site is a great example of advertisement RELATED to the topic at hand. I like that and that gives it credibility because it also shows that the author is not afraid of criticism and can look for other source/authors for different point of view.
Remember, NOONE is perfect and will ever agree 100% with you but you can get close.
Does the article offer contact info? Yep, this is important, if I see something on the site you give me that I don't like, I want to be able to contact the author. I talk to some people on this forum in PM on a regular basis and hear their thoughts.
Some are smart, others.. not so much. Especially when you get replies the next morning like "just listen to me you r-tard or I'll kick your ass! I'm always right! Why do you have to ruin all this for me!??" I want contact info.
Now remember, there are always exceptions but most of the time, the author should be reachable. Sure Richard Dawkins isn't easily reached but there are other closer ones. It's called six degrees of separation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation) so start networking. Find out why Richard would want to meet you and get going.
I have met two or three famous people in my life. Two are book author. One is Donald Trump. I learned a lot from them. Donald Trump I just merely shook hand after I told him I was a big fan. Did I get much more after that? No but I learned enough by watching him talk, walk, etcetc.
Networking is another subject. Point is, for MOST people, esp most of you bastards using bad source, most of these source better have authors that are reachable, especially if they are unheard of or not famous.
Answer:
Can you verify the credibility of the author? This goes back to the first one. Listen, if the author claims to have a Ph.D, find out in what, what college, etcetc. Because I am seriously going to call their college to verify this. I have actually done this and found quite a few liars.
It's not hard to give yourself "Doctorate of Spirituality in New Age" of whatever. This is why fans of the "The Secret" would be disappointed because half the "scientists" in there have no credibility other than the fact they have written books. Now, there are a few good ones, like the author of Chicken Soup for the Heart, but the rest are just... slimey. Use your own judgement.
Be a skeptic. If you're on this site you can afford the dictionary. Start here: http://skepdic.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Dicti.../dp/0471272426
I bought this book and gave it to a few church members. Talk about angry mobs.
Again, last one and this one should be repeated: are they selling you something? Notice the background or the author's background for his site. Is he trying his best to sell you something? If so, it damages his credibility as to what he has to say! I'm talking about bait and switch here.
There are more but these are the hard rules. Remember, you can never be too critical of truth and the pursuit of it. Always find out the truth, always pursue, always do your best in life and you will go far.
And go http://www.plagiarism.org!!! Too many plagiarizer out there.
Note: I didn't proofread it yet so DON'T criticize my spelling, grammar, don't nitpick. It retards the discussion and is irrelevant. I'm also going to report anyone who just types "I stopped at here cause it's not true" especially if you don't add anything constructive. I want this to be helpful.
And don't bother doing some kind of background search on me, I have no intention on banking off you and just want to help. So don't PM me about how to get rich quick, the only way to get rich quick is through very hard work.
/enjoy
Answer:
I didn't make any claims, just have fun. :D Off to lunch I go.
Answer:
Great couple of posts. I really liked your stuff on disinformation. Here is some related material I posted in a thread awhile back that took a skeptical look at things.
In Shermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things he lists some tactics of pseudoscience. Even though he is talking about the holocaust denial movement, he describes the tactics as "eerily similar" to other groups.
1. They concentrate on their opponents weak points, while rarely saying anything definitive about their own position.
2. They exploit errors made by scholars and imply since some of their conclusions may have been wrong, they all are.
3. They make use of out of context quotes. One example is the Darwin and the eye quote often used by anti evolutionists.
4. The mistake honest debate over the details in a particular field as a sign of weakness of the entire field.
5. They focus on the unknown and ignore what is known.
I also recently read about some research into Chiropractors who reject germ theory and vaccinations. The tactics are similar to what Shermer noted, but they deserve mention.
1. They doubt the science. Basically they claim the science to support what goes against their personal beliefs isn't good enough, no matter what the amount of evidence is.
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists. This is common in pseudoscience as many people believe there is a huge conspiracy among scientists to further some secret goal. For instance, the claim that climatologists who study global warming are in it for the money and are trying to bring socialism to the US is a serious claim, backed up by poor evidence, usually quotes.
3. Magnify disagreements and cite gadflies as authorities. This is similar to Shermer's number four tactic. The citing of Gadflies is where someone ignores 99% of all scientists in one field but accept the one that supports their personal beliefs.
4. Exaggerate potential harm. This is like when creationists claim that teaching evolution in schools will lead to violence, which once again, is not supported by any good evidence.
5. Appeal to personal freedom. To use creationists as an example again, this is similar to when they want the schools to teach religion in science class and "let the students decide." Of course they usually only want their religion taught and no others.
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy. This is when someone refuses to accept something, no matter how much evidence there is, because it will destroy their personal beliefs. For instance, germ theory deniers will not accept the fact that disease is caused by germs because it goes against their belief that disease is caused by other factors. The amount of evidence is irrelevant to these people. They are True Believers.
Answer:
Great posts guys. This should be stickied.
Answer:
i didnt read everything. But i like what i did read!!
Answer:
Great posts guys. This should be stickied. x2
Answer:
x2 x3
Answer:
Sticky this please. this will benifit alot of people on these boards
Answer:
My favourite is when people say "it's well known amongst scholars"
Answer:
My favourite is when people say "it's well known amongst scholars" Yes the problem is often getting the information to the masses. Most scholarly subjects can be understood with just a little bit of effort, but sometimes it is hard to know where to start. And the Internet has so much garbage on it I am wary of a site unless I know it is legitimate.