When using references, universal resource locators (URLs), copy and paste material and even memes, to bolster one’s arguments, it is important that one thoroughly research the trustworthiness of the sources being used. The web and even magazines and books are rife with misleading and biased material. Material content from a respected and trustworthy magazine, such as Scientific American, is more reliable than information from a sensational publication such as Worldnewsdailyreport. During a debate about whether an afterlife exists, I received a link to this website which claimed that German researchers had discovered proof of life after death. The article mentioned the researchers from a respected German University. It was well written and sounded scientific. When I looked up the website Worldnewsdailyreport.com, I discovered, in small letters under the website’s logo, the disclaimer “where facts don’t matter” (look it up). This publication thrives on ridiculous stories to amuse the public.
If an advertisement of a health product claims that “this wonderful cure has been hidden from you by big pharma,” you can be sure that snake-oil salesmen are at work. Claims mentioning that “recent research has discovered….” without references to a peer reviewed and published paper, with the names and credentials of the researchers, should be ignored, even if names and universities are mentioned. Check whether they are real.
Although Wikipedia is not always correct, it is a great place to start checking for scientists, universities and subject matter. Wikipedia always has a great list of references of publications and research papers so you can delve deeper into the subject you are researching or checking which makes the quest for reliability so much easier. Checking and verifying your sources is a real pain but, if you want to have credibility, it is a must.
When you are in a debate and you reject someone’s argument, make sure that you back up your rejection with logic and facts. I find that many commentators simply reject ideas without providing logical answers as to why a particular assertion is wrong. This is not acceptable in any civil debate and, although tempting, avoid ad hominem statements.
YouTube and the web are, in my humble perspective, over 80% not trustworthy. Some are very clever and it takes a real effort to dig deep enough for reliable material. But we must take a real effort to do so.
If an advertisement of a health product claims that “this wonderful cure has been hidden from you by big pharma,” you can be sure that snake-oil salesmen are at work. Claims mentioning that “recent research has discovered….” without references to a peer reviewed and published paper, with the names and credentials of the researchers, should be ignored, even if names and universities are mentioned. Check whether they are real.
Although Wikipedia is not always correct, it is a great place to start checking for scientists, universities and subject matter. Wikipedia always has a great list of references of publications and research papers so you can delve deeper into the subject you are researching or checking which makes the quest for reliability so much easier. Checking and verifying your sources is a real pain but, if you want to have credibility, it is a must.
When you are in a debate and you reject someone’s argument, make sure that you back up your rejection with logic and facts. I find that many commentators simply reject ideas without providing logical answers as to why a particular assertion is wrong. This is not acceptable in any civil debate and, although tempting, avoid ad hominem statements.
YouTube and the web are, in my humble perspective, over 80% not trustworthy. Some are very clever and it takes a real effort to dig deep enough for reliable material. But we must take a real effort to do so.
RSS Feed