I like Kathryn Schulz’s TED talk and book on Being Wrong.
Re: OP
I used to read The Truth straight from the source, an entity that knows everything and is never wrong. The Truth would come once a week. Some people would read up on The Truth on Sunday, but in actuality the source of Truth came around every Friday, so the people on Sunday were always a bit late.
Some people say The Truth I’m talking about doesn’t cover everything. It’s said that ordinary people wrote it, people who don’t know everything who are sometimes wrong, and they didn’t have things in mind like the U.S. going fascist or removing a crazy President from office. Well, it’s probably true that some things were left out, but I’m confident that the specific situations of the U.S. becoming fascist and of removing a crazy President were covered.
Unfortunately we lost our source of Truth in 2018, you probably read about it. I think these last couple years might have been a bit brighter if it were not so. There are archives available for anyone to read online, though. Lots of Truth in there. I visit them every now and again, and some I read more than once. It gets cited here occasionally.
Here’s a link, if you don’t already know what I’m talking about 
~Max
I try not to make such broad claims to begin with. I’ll usually “think” I’m right or they’re wrong, and sometimes I won’t say “I think”, but rarely do I actually know.
If I know someone is wrong, it is either because
- I’m confident enough in my understanding of their position to say I know they are wrong, or
- I’m confident that another position is both right and incompatible.
~Max
Especially with so much information coming from the internet, when something doesn’t fit the rest of the things I’m reading on the subject, I look at other sites like
mediabiasfactcheck.com.
For instance, of Breitbart it says:
In general, the majority of published stories favor the right and are highly pro-Trump in tone and story selection. Many stories also promote anti-science propaganda as it pertains to Climate Change and Mask Effectiveness.
and
Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda as well as numerous false claims. (M. Huitsing 6/18/2016) Updated (10/06/2020)
Several failed fact checks appear. Hmm.
If someone insisted it were truth, I’d suggest they run it past other sources. Snopes probably shoots quite a few of them down eventually but I imagine they have their hands full.
This.
When William F. Buckley was asked what he’d do if confronted with evidence that the Resurrection never happened, he said he’d convert to Judaism.
As someone said - there is a difference between “the Truth” - which is a subjective determination, and if a given statement of facts is ‘true’ - which is an objective determination based on actual verifiable evidence.
Since it seems we’re talking about the media mostly in this thread - I rarely listen/pay much attention to editorials or opEds, etc - Most of the talking heads put a bit to much work into trying to make a given set of facts look one way or the other.
If I find one of them out right mis-states a given set of facts, then I discredit everything that particular talking head stands for - and it is easy enough to validate alot of these things thru various sources.
I am a strong believer in the following concept -
“You cannot win an argument that you only understand one side of”
- Look carefully at your sources of news. Who funds them? Do they have an agenda?
Many newspapers reflect the views of their proprietor (for example, anything owned by Rupert Murdoch is automatically suspect.)
TV channels that only support one point of view are another problem.
Here in the UK, I rely on the BBC (funded by a license fee) and the Guardian (funded by a charitable trust.)
-
Look for claims that are either unsupported by evidence (‘the election was fixed’) or even refuted by evidence (Trump claiming the ‘largest inauguration crowd in history’.)
-
The use of ‘alternative facts’ is an admission that they are lying.
Well, I have more time, but the explanation of this quick trip to find the truth of an item did grow a lot. You are warned.
So a request had come from a teacher to get a better image of “The Learning Pyramid” to use on a presentation to be shown to other educators. The image was of very low quality, clearly copied from other sources, it could be read but it needed to have the original source or a better image that one could digitize the text or eventually recreated it so it could be used to show in a screen for a presentation.
So, while it was not then yet an issue of finding the truth, it quickly turned into one as soon as a search hinted that there was trouble ahead. First clue was thanks to a tool that I have found it can help a lot: the NewsGuard addon. It is a group that has been looking to identify good sources of information, and while one has to point out that it is important to not use it exclusively, it does help like in this case.
When a google search was made, Newsguard gave a mark to places like educationcorner.com, that was the first hit, an “i” mark, for them it is a “Platform: A site receives a platform rating if it primarily hosts user-generated content that it does not vet. Information from platform sites may or may not be reliable.
As a next step, I looked at the short quotes in the Google search for other cites. Some had quotes where they described the Learning Pyramid as a myth.
Well I was not expecting that, so I looked for the first cite that was marked as “Green” by NewsGuard. It came from the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/06/why-the-learning-pyramid-is-wrong/
But one does not stop there, that article showed how inadequate the pyramid was by looking at research and using logic. Besides not having the percentages add up, not mentioning the age of the students that applied to was a big clue on why the graph was not based in real information.
After finding that the claimed cites did not exist, I found the original image this came from:
Edgar Dale, an expert in audiovisual education, created a model in his 1946 book Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching that he named the Cone of Experience to discuss various modalities/channels of imparting information. His cone did not refer to learning or retention at all, instead modelling levels of abstraction: words being the most abstract in his model, at the top of the cone, and real-life experiences the most concrete, and at the base of the cone (Lalley & Miller, 2007, p. 68). Take a look at the image below left: note that there are no percentages listed, this is purely a theoretical model. Dale did not value one mode over another, but argued for a wide variety of modes depending on context (Molenda, 2004, p. 161). Researchers speculate that Dale based the Cone on an earlier theoretical graph (below right) from 1937’s Visualizing the Curriculum, by Charles F. Hoban, Charles F. Hoban, Jr., and Samuel B Zisman.
Unfortunately, this conceptual model took on a life of its own. While Dale included caveats in the several editions of his work that the Cone was a theoretical model, and that multiple modes could apply to situations depending on the context, his work was ripe to be misused as a practical tool. As Michael Molenda notes, by the third edition of Audio-Visual Materials in Teaching in 1969, Dale had to include a full six pages of disclaimers regarding the cone, titled “Some Possible Misconceptions.”
Like the old game of telephone, items where added or removed, and out of proportion numbers added later.
I sent the quick research to the educator and while a bit miffed, he decided to tell the other educators in the presentation to use the image just as a guideline and not a law because of the evidence. Well, one can not win it all, at least I convinced others to present that myth with the context of how it was changed and that the curriculum we already had should be the one to follow.
TLDR: To find the truth use some tools that help id the good sources from the bad sources, and then still check with other good sources if the information found is a proper one.
I completely agree. I find it frustrating at times when people take the attitude, “we already know the answer so I won’t even look at the evidence or hear the argument.”
Being 100% sure you already have the truth is a sure way to avoid learning it.
I offload that work to the fact checkers at organizations who care about their reputation for truth and honesty – the NY Times, NPR, etc.
I’m not going to get any closer to the truth while trolling the internet to find random wackos with blogs or YouTube channels, and definitely not if I’m watching Fox News, The Blaze, etc.
I note that he apparently didn’t say he’d become an atheist or agnostic, or for that matter a Buddhist or animist.
Remember that ~30 years ago the guy who thought bacteria caused ulcers was considered a wacko by just about everyone in the scientific community. If he had given up we’d still believe ulcers came from stress and still have no good cure.
Yes, and for every example of that, there are thousands or tens of thousands of wackos promoting all kinds of bullshit. What’s your point?
Uh, that “wacko” did the experiments (on himself too!) to demonstrate that. That convinced then the scientists that he was not an oddball; he did not just pondered or made stupid “models” that “demonstrated” he was was right and called it a day like most random wackos in the internet or the right wing media do.
My point is putting up with wackos is important when searching for truth. A very small percentage of them are correct. If you don’t care about truth feel free to ignore them all at your peril.
I’m saying that, unless your full time job is fact checking, you’re wasting your time trying to track down the “truth”. There are organizations who care about this who will do the job for you, and will be better at it than you are.
There’s no reason to watch Fox News – they only say true things when it is convenient for them, and lie all the time when that’s convenient. They don’t care about their reputation for truth and honesty, and in fact, when they went slightly down that road recently, their viewership started turning against them. The same is even more true for OANN and other right wing sources. It’s doubtless true for some left wing sources as well. And, it’s even more true for nearly all random blogs, etc., pushing crazy news and theories. So, why waste your time with any of them?
Go to the sources that care about their reputations, that post prominent corrections and fire people when they get something wrong. Those places are the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, BBC, etc.
ETA: Back to your example – there is no way that I could have figured out if the ulcer guy was a nutcase or for real. Zero chance. If I were reading his stuff, I couldn’t tell if he was legit or the same as those idiots posting about flaws in relativity. So, why would I waste my time? Let the science run its course.
I took this to be an expression of his affinity for the Judeo-Christian moral system. Which is a reasonable thing to fall back on if you stop believing the supernatural side of Christianity.
You can be a Jew and be deist, agnostic, or even atheist.
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-Carl Sagan
The point that you miss is that with more ways for those few to contact and convince the proper experts that are available nowadays, the few that remain still in YouTube and other fringe media are more likely than not to be just Bozos.
Also to add that they were right to laugh at Columbus. His ideas were wrong and the conventional wisdom was right. He just lucked out that there was a big ass continent or two in middle of the path west from Spain to Asia. By all rights his journey should have consisted of taking his three ships out for months of open ocean until they ran out of supplies and had to turn back accomplishing nothing.
As Babale said earlier
As pointed out by RitterSport, the difference is that the people he was trying to convince were other scientists. The whole point of the scientific method is that you go where the evidence points you. If the evidence shows the old hypothesis is incorrect, you reject the old hypothesis and come up with a new one that better fits the evidence. Rinse and repeat, since we can’t automatically assume the new hypothesis is definitively correct either.
Right wing wackos, on the other hand, care little to none about the evidence. They have their conclusions, and any evidence to the contrary is “fake news.”