Critical Thinking and Skepticism Are Always Necessary

[MineralMan]

At any moment around the clock, someone, somewhere, is posting something on a blog, on Twitter, or on some website somewhere that is incorrect, distorted, exaggerated, or just plain deliberately wrong. It happens everywhere on the Internet and it happens constantly. Not even websites like Daily KOS and Huffington Post are immune to such erroneous stuff. In fact, due to their prominence, they're a common place to find incorrect, misleading, or heavily slanted posts.

There is no editorial oversight, fact checking or confirmation of information in most places on the Internet. It simply doesn't exist, so anyone can post anything, true or false.

And, as soon as incorrect things or distortions appear somewhere on the Internet, they get reposted on other blogs, Twitter feeds, and on the multitude of websites where anyone can post anything. And those postings get posted in even more places, again and again and again. The incorrect information spreads like wildfire, and never goes away. Once such a posting gets debunked, the debunking often doesn't spread with anything like the same speed or as widely.

And so it goes. Nonsense that is posted today will reappear again and again for a long time to come. People see it and are inspired or outraged or whatever, and the cycle begins again.

So, when we see such things that inspire or outrage us somewhere in the Internet, how can we keep from spreading misinformation, lies, or deliberately incorrect information? Critical thinking is the answer, along with considerable skepticism.

Critical thinking and skepticism mean never taking anything you read online at face value. Instead of immediately reposting things, careful thought and analysis, along with some fact checking that looks at sites that aren't just reposting the same thing, and a little common sense will help slow the spread of incorrect information. It won't stop it, but it can slow it down.

In addition, critical thinking, skepticism, and fact checking can also help avoid embarrassing moments for people thinking about reposting something. That's a real benefit. Similarly, when something shows up on a website you frequent, avoid immediately jumping on a bandwagon and adding to the confusion. It helps to stop and think, take things to their logical conclusion, and even to wait to see if the story is actually factual in the first place.

Critical thinking, skepticism and a waiting period along with checking facts and considering other possibilities than the seemingly obvious ones are great ways to help keep places you frequent factual, informative, and accurate. And all of that applies to the entire Internet, because anyone can post anything anywhere on the Internet. Reposting and jumping on bandwagons are not always the wisest courses of action.

[sufrommich]

1. Critical Thinking and Skepticism were hacked to death by

internet "news sources" which are not news sources at all, the so called "citizen journalists" of both the left and the right are on a mission to turn us all into Alex Jones and it's relentless. For what an incredible source of real information the internet is, used the wrong way it works to dumb us all down.

[MineralMan]

4. That's true. There are many "news" websites that are

only connected with the concept of news by a microscopically thin thread. Most such sites are opinion and not news. And opinions are of varying validity and importance, depending on the writer stating an opinion. On many sites, opinions are expressed by people using "handles" or screen names only. Their real identity is unknown, so it's impossible to check to see if they are reliable or find other things they have written under other names.

I see stuff posted as fact from minor blogs with just a few entries. Anyone can start a blog. A blog is not a news source, unless it is proven over time. Instead, blog posts, especially from people with assumed names, should be discarded as primary information until that information has been checked on known reliable sources.

The old five Ws from news reporting should always be applied:

Who wrote this and what are that person's background and bona fides? If a screen name or pseudonym is in use, there's no way to tell.
What is the source of the information in what is written? If no source is given, be very skeptical. If a source is given, check it out, especially if a link is provided. Treat the information at that source with the same careful checking.
Where does this appear? What is the reliability level for the place the writing appears. If it's a blog with few entries, that approaches zero. If it is an advocacy website, be suspicious. If it is a site with a clear bias displayed, take with a grain of salt.
When was this written? Often things posted about breaking events are inaccurate because all the information is not yet available. Any conclusions drawn in such cases are suspect and should be examined once all the facts are available.
Why was this written? A lot of information on the Internet is little more than propaganda for some point of view. Look at other things on the same website. Is there an obvious bias? Does the writing propose some sort of action that must be urgently taken? Think about where you found the information. Check it out.

[pipi_k]

2. Necessary, but unfortunately...

not often used.

As I see just about every day on, for example, Facebook.

I get regular updates from Hoaxslayers and Snopes.com on Facebook on the latest stupid bullshit that happens to be going around.

It's really sad to see people post dumbass crap even after I've just shared a story debunking that very rumor on my own wall. Often, before they even post their own crap. I know they can see my links...they see everything else.

But there they are, passing on the shit without even thinking...or wondering if it's true or false.

Hello??? Whatever happened to a healthy dose of skepticism? Taking a minute or so to google whatever they're about to pass on to see if it's bullshit or not?

And here at DU....pffft....

Post a story that validates what people want to believe, and it automatically becomes Gospel. Gospel!! And anyone who doesn't believe the stories, even if they lack lots of detail, must be an idiot.

Of course, it's also possible to be TOO skeptical, and that's something I wrestle with all the time.

[MineralMan]

6. Skepticism is only useful if you follow through and

check the thing you're skeptical of. Once you've done that, you'll know if it's justified or not. In some cases, waiting to see what happens is the only way to find out.

[snot]

3. As a corollary, sourcing

is a practice I really appreciate.

[MineralMan]

5. Yes, sourcing is very important, but the underlying source needs

to have the same standards applied to it, too. Not all sources are good sources.

[snot]

34. Agreed!

But at least with a source, you can check it out and decide for yourself. And sometimes, even if the initial source is questionable, it cites another source that isn't.

I've actually frequently googled other DU'er's unsourced stories myself to try to figure out how reliable the info was. Often there is a good source, but the poster could have saved us all the trouble.

And it's also happened not infrequently that the DU'er's interpretation of the source proved to be a bit off -- they read it too quickly or something.

Also, I think it's worthwhile encouraging everyone to provide and check sources as a standard practice, partially as a corrective to the deliberate lies that some people spread.

[MineralMan]

35. Thanks. I do the same thing with unsourced news-type stories.

I go Google it in the News area and see if I can find the original source. Usually, I can. Opinion posts, though, are a different thing. If a DUer posts his or her own opinion, I read it and compare it to the opinions of others, and my own. I appreciate it very much when DUers post opinion pieces. Frankly, most of those are better than most of the blog posts that get posted here.

[leftstreet]

7. Ugh. Stop lecturing us

Most people already do this. But unlike your suggestions they don't stop at blogs, twitters, or tEh InTeRNetZ. They know they can't trust a thing that spews from the corporate media either

[MineralMan]

8. Ah, thanks for your suggestion.

I'll take it under consideration....OK....consideration done:

I wasn't lecturing. I was posting something that relates to Internet postings. It is, as I note in my signature line, my opinion. We all have those, and most of us post them when we feel like posting them.

I'm not very good at following orders, BTW.

[JoePhilly]

9. Unless it reflects badly on the administration ... then its PROOF!!

At least that's what we learned yesterday.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Bingo

Look how quickly people swallowed the tale of the pressure cooker/backpack Google whatever-it-was.

"NSA bad!"

Oh...debunked?

(Crickets)

[sufrommich]

10. "Most people already do this"

No ,most people don't, that's the problem.

[pipi_k]

13. Actually...

most people don't do this.

It's apparent just reading DU on any given day.

Test it out someday. Post a "news" story that's total bullshit but which validates the prejudices of lots of people.

Watch how many jump on the story with what they think is justified outrage, even if the story lacks some depth or important details.

[leftstreet]

14. Not many 'total bullshit' stories get posted here

The OP starts with the assumption DU is inundated with bullshit stories, which is bullshit

My point was people obviously already practice enough skepticism and fact-checking to keep DU a credible site

[hfojvt]

27. really?

because here's a rightwing piece of crap that consistently gets over 100 recs as it is repeatedly posted here.

Here I am complaining about the 4th time I have seen it, and note the 173 recs.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022736379#post9

Maybe I should check the rec list. Did YOU rec that thread?

[leftstreet]

32. I guess I missed that post from April 2013 n/t

[Bonobo]

11. Very few who praise skepticism actually practice it equally.

Usually it is the opinions that are unwelcome and which do not fit into the already existing mental architecture that are afforded the skeptical view while those that confirm predisposed prejudices are readily accepted.

[MineralMan]

12. That's very true.

Critical thinking and skepticism are good goals, though. As with everything, most of us don't reach our goals every time.

[Bonobo]

15. Well said. nt

[rrneck]

16. That's not why we're here.

This place, and all the others like it I guess, is a big cocktail party with court reporters. The sources you would have people use are struggling for relevance in a society that increasingly runs on emotion and confirmation bias, both of which are the result of a market based culture. There's no money in information, but huge fortunes are made by facilitating the communications that basically tell people what they want to hear. The vast majority of people aren't looking for information, but confirmation. And that's how the 1% got to be the 1%.

They are, in the words of Tyler Durden, "Selling our own fat asses back to us."

[Bonx]

17. RE: "The vast majority of people aren't looking for information, but confirmation."

So damn true.

[MineralMan]

19. You know, I didn't suggest any particular type of source

as reliable. All sources require critical thinking and skepticism. All. In some cases, a traditional news source will simply provide the factual information surrounding a story. The same can be true of blogs and other sources. Factual information is, or should be, the basis for forming opinions. Clearly, though, that's not always the case, and much of what passes as "news" is opinion, not news at all.

Often, too, the wrong conclusions are drawn from a set of facts, particularly when the set of facts is incomplete or the situation has not been fully investigated or even come to an ending point. Drawing conclusions from an insufficient set of facts is often where things break down. There's a crime, for example, and people draw conclusions about guilt and innocence before even having all the pertinent information. That's a common example.

But I didn't identify any sources as reliable. That's the very issue. These days, reliability should always be in question, whatever the source, in my opinion.

[rrneck]

21. You know...

"Critical thinking is the answer, along with considerable skepticism."

http://www.marketingpower.com/aboutama/documents/jmr_forthcoming/online_content_viral.pdf

What Makes Online Content Viral?
Our findings make a number of contributions to the existing literature. First, they
inform the ongoing debate about whether people tend to share positive or negative
content. While common wisdom suggest that people tend to pass along negative news
more than positive news, our results indicate that positive news is actually more viral.
Further, by examining the full corpus of New York Times content (i.e., all articles
available), we can say that positive content is more likely to be highly shared even
controlling for how frequently it occurs.

...

Our findings also suggest that social transmission is about more than just value
exchange or self-presentation (also see Berger & Schwartz, 2011). Consistent with the
notion that people share to entertain others, surprising and interesting content is highly
viral. Similarly, consistent with the notion that people share to inform others, or boost
their mood, practically useful and positive content is more viral. These effects are all
consistent with the idea that people may share content to help others, generate
reciprocity, or boost their reputation (e.g., show they know entertaining or useful things).
Even controlling for these effects, however, we find that highly arousing content (e.g.,
anxiety- or anger-evoking) is more likely to make the most emailed list. Such content
does not clearly produce immediate economic value in the traditional sense, or even
necessarily reflect favorably on the self. This suggests that social transmission may be
less about motivation and more about the transmitter’s internal states.

You have posted helpful information in a forum that is dominated by people who are highly educated. I think it's safe to say that the vast majority of DUers appreciate the value of properly sourced facts upon which to draw their conclusions. I think it's also safe to say that they, generally speaking, don't necessarily value them here.

So what conclusions might we draw from the OP? Well, I didn't see any links to fact check. Looks like an opinion piece to me, written by a professional writer that could bang out 449 words without thinking about it. Hell, for all we know you might have pulled it "from the file". And since you write professionally, I expect you have a pretty good handle on the marketing potential of various forms of written content. There is nothing here that causes any anxiety or inspires anger so much as tells people what they already know. So, it appears to have been posted as reputation enhancement. Well done.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I found that pdf here.

[MineralMan]

24. Wow! Nice job of analysis, except

Last edited Fri Aug 2, 2013, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

that you came to the wrong conclusion about my reasons for writing and posting that. Yesterday, we had a perfect example of an incorrect post from an unreliable source that not only succeeded in becoming viral, but did that on multiple websites. When the story about the woman whose home was visited by several law enforcement people showed up, I questioned the conclusion that it was due to some nefarious government spying. So, I didn't comment on the initial posts. Later, when additional information made it clear that the government did not detect the searches that brought some local police officers to that home, but that it was due to information from one of the residents' former employer.

So, that's why I posted this OP. The call for critical thinking and skepticism could often be made. I made the post general, and not specific to DU, and did not provide information on what sources might be reliable rather than unreliable. Incorrect information and conclusion drawn from incomplete information is not just confined to DU, but is widespread on the Internet.

Yes, I write marketing content as my profession. As it happens, such content often falls in the range between 400 and 500 words in length, as did my OP. I often write to that approximate length, because it has proven to be a length that many people will read fully, rather than simply read partially. However, there the similarity stops. I get paid for my marketing writing, since I do it for small business websites I help to create. I do not get paid for my posts here on DU, or anywhere else where I post in discussion forums. My motivations for writing this OP were to attempt to point out that not using critical thinking can lead to embarrassment and misinformation. Why do I care about that? Because I read and write frequently on DU.

Thank you for taking the time you took to reply to my OP. Clearly, you read the entire post, carefully analyzed it, did additional research and composed a well written reply. I appreciate your thoroughness. However, your conclusion about the reasons I posted it here are incorrect.

[rrneck]

31. That information wasn't in the OP.

Nor is it relevant.

Stuff happens all the time in the world. The entire hulking Blog/Internet Forum/Twitter/Facebook/Talking Head industry mines it for emotional material. The content transfer industry makes billions facilitating the transfer of those emotions. DemocraticUnderground is part of that industry, and more power to Skinner et al for it.

If my conclusion is incorrect, why did you post the OP? Not that it matters, your reasons for doing so are your own, and the information you offered was helpful and altogether correct. The OP is a source for agreement and consensus is surely a good thing. The OP is a fine example of offering a group of people something they all value to facilitate agreement and, by extension, cooperation. Raw data, no matter how accurate, doesn't win elections. That takes raw emotions.

But when you post an OP about something as obvious as the value of critical thinking without any reference to anything but your opinion, you have to realize the only result is that this thread will be about you. Do you really think anyone will argue against the value of critical thinking? And now, this subthread is specifically about you. But could it have gone in any other direction? Like I said, there are no outbound links in the OP. There appear to be only two choices: Agree with you, or argue against common sense.

You have either purposely or inadvertently done exactly what you decry: You are mining emotions. Do you think there is some evil conspiracy to spread erroneous information across the internet? Of course not. The objective is profit. For the big (and not so big) players, profit comes in the form of money paid for eyeballs. For others, there is profit in prestige. That's how Huffington Post gets people to write stuff for free. And it's also why people post opinions in places like this for no money.

It's easy (and wise) for the messenger to try to divorce himself from bad news. But what are the dangers of bearing good news? How does one keep from having their association with good news result in unearned profit? It takes a briar patch.

[frazzled]

18. Corollaries:

(1) Do not confine yourself to reading articles and information that confirm what you already think or believe. (In other words, don't just go looking for snippets to support your preconceived notions; even if you disagree with these other arguments, you'll at least have some understanding, and possibly respect, for some aspects of them.)

(2) Don't ascribe motives or bad faith to others with whom you disagree.

[MineralMan]

20. Very well stated!

Thanks for adding good advice to the idea.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

22. Sure, good lecture, you should heed it.

It would serve your future creative speculation, posts that are often pregnant with certainty and moral indignation.

Thank you for seeing the light

[MineralMan]

26. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[Safetykitten]

23. Thanks dad.

[MineralMan]

25. No problem, kiddo...

[mick063]

28. Reality trumps opinion.

If reality becomes bad enough, discussion about reality grows, discussion becomes emotion, and emotion becomes action.

The action can be good or bad, and we may discuss it ad nauseam, but the action will still take place.

A million web sites will not prevent reality from it's proper influence.

[alp227]

29. ONLY 5 RECS? shows a lot about our community n/t

[MineralMan]

30. On DU, recommendations are higher

for controversial issues where people take sides. This post isn't really controversial, so it doesn't stimulate recs. I don't write for recommendations, anyhow. There's no point to it.

[YoungDemCA]

33. And at any moment, someone is seeking to control and limit the public debate....

...through appeals to such things as "critical thinking" or "skepticism"-a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize existing power structures.

Ironically, such critical thinking skills or a skeptical outlook are soon abandoned by this same crowd when it comes to representatives of the existing power structures, and we are told by these same people to take them (and the people they defend) at their word.

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....”

-Noam Chomsky

[Fumesucker]

36. Too bad the Mainstream Media didn't take your advice in 2003

Or several hundred thousand people who are currently dead would likely still be alive and our country would be a trillion or three better off.

Some of us have been skeptical and thinking critically since at least that time.

[reusrename]

37. Preach it MM.

Some day you may learn to practice it.