When you read or hear something, how do you determine if it is true or not?

[kentuck]

Do you have an automatic truth detector that flashes in your brain? Do you know immediately whether or not it is bullshit?

Do you contrast what you see and hear with the facts that you already know?

How do we determine what is true and what is not? Is it intuition or a gut feeling?

For example, when someone says that Palin quit her office so she could make more money, does a little light go off in your brain and you say, "Eureka, that is it!"

Is all truth subjective or can it be proven with facts and reality? And is not truth reality?

[Oregone]

1. I use a coin. Its right about 53% of the time

[Captain Hilts]

2. Ask yourself: 'Who benefits'? from the release of the information.

Then ask, 'who decides'? and one or both of the above help you sift out information.

Such as the 'Pelosi knew about torture and didn't stop it' round of stories.

Who benefitted? Republicans. There you go.

[Odin2005]

26. That is the wrong way to go about it.

It assumes that everything in society is controlled by the actions of a cabal, what is called the "Conspiracy Theory of Society". It is a primitive, pre-rational, pre-scientific belief system based on projecting our instinctual "folk psychology" where it doesn't belong (hence "who benefits?") that is of the same type as polytheistic beliefs in which everything is the result of the machinations and petty squabbles of the gods on Olympus. It completely ignores the impersonal forces, like the law of unintended consequences, that are the real determiners of what happens in a society.

[earth mom]

3. Connect the dots. nt

[madokie]

4. Sixty one years of mostly paying attention gives me quite the edge on what is and what is not bull

Wrong sometimes but rarely that is the case.

[Blue_In_AK]

5. While I still think there may be another shoe to drop in the Palin fiasco

I do believe that Levi's assessment is pretty darn accurate. :)

Having been "burned" multiple times in my life, I'm now pretty much of a cynic. When somebody or something seems really good, I automatically distrust. A character flaw maybe, but it keeps me from being disappointed.

[rrneck]

13. Probably a whole closet full

since she is no doubt buying more all the time.

[sam sarrha]

6. i google it with different combinations, ____ fake, ___ rip off, ___true, or just google it, i check

with http://www.truthorfiction.com there are several of these..

but after doing this a while you get a feel for it.. if its Reich Wing, GOP, etc it usually feels slimy.. if I'm not familiar with the subject i look it up. they are a one trick pony with their compulsive lie's.. they are a cult ideology with no connection to reality, if you are at all conscious you can smell it

[NightWatcher]

7. I assume it is not true and then look to prove it

that's why I hate the new Newsiness of twitter. I want proof not just a sayso.

[kentuck]

20. You are right!

That is true!

[Posteritatis]

8. Where I heard it, the original source, language used, facts mentioned...

There's no one thing. If something wildly contradicts what I know to be true I usually won't reject it out of hand (unless it's part of a body of things that I know to be untrue), but I'll look more carefully at it.

I actively try to avoid accepting/dismissing things on ideological grounds, which I find are the worst way to determine if something's true or not.

[Lint Head]

9. Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.

That is until you have proof or evidence that makes belief undeniable.
:dem:

[Bicoastal]

10. By how many positive recs it has.

:evilgrin:

[BlooInBloo]

11. Heh - the epistemology of political news.

[druidity33]

12. my first response

is to determine whether i trust "who" i've heard it from.

Then i look for independent verification via another reliable source. And i never completely discount something until it's absolutely disproven. Besides, some truth is pretty subjective. I try not to find the truth as much as understand both sides (multiple sides) of the story. Sometimes one side is obviously tainted... and it's easier to reach a conclusion. Sometimes i submit that i will never know the truth.

These are philosophical questions you are asking... and having never studied Philosophy, i can't argue any concepts. But i can read body language well, and am excellent at spotting "tells". Sometimes you just need to look at someone to know they're lying.

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. To politicians, "the truth" is, at best, a fungible irritant.

[Ian David]

15. See also: CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

[Posteritatis]

22. Quite a few people here would hate that one (nt)

[hunter]

36. I like that, but many things are inconsequential or subjective, and not worth arguing.

Is there a God, or not? Not worth arguing about.

Is your God telling you to restrict the rights of gay people or to shoot abortion doctors? Then I argue with you and your religion, but the question of God's existence is still inconsequential.

And if your God appears next to you, speaking from a cloud and throwing lightening bolts at me, I argue with the cloud too.

[elocs]

16. Sometimes I am sure I know based upon personal knowledge or facts,

sometimes I think I know, and sometimes I flat out do not know but I know what I believe regardless of whether what I hear or read is true.

[rrneck]

17. I'm patient

The truth always comes out. If not by itself, through examination of evidence.

[RC]

18. Think of a jig saw puzzle with missing pieces and pieces from other puzzles mixed in

The pieces are bits of information. The more pieces you have in place, the easier it is to determine if a new piece of information fits this puzzle or not.
DU is good because sources are required. You can see the new pieces for yourself and decide if any fit or not. The source itself can sometimes be used to determined of a new piece is any good or not, even if it does not seem to fit at the time.
And then sometimes whole sections of what you thought was a completed puzzle has to be removed and worked on because the noise machine on the right supplied erroneous pieces.
Got it? Simple, yes?

"TRUTH HAS A LIBERAL BIAS"

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Withhold judgment and use what scientists use: peer review

Gather information from as many sources as you can and enlist the opinions of others before you make up your mind.

That's what I do.

[jwirr]

21. I look to see what the source of the info is first. Is it reliable? Then I

determine if the message is sensible - does it fit with what I already know and what is logical? And finally I ask "How do they know?" Where did they get their info from and what method did they use to determine the truth.

I realize that sometimes we cannot know what is true but a lot of the bull can be eliminated this way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. I look at how many recs it has.

Because surely, if it wasn't true, the thoughtful, circumspect and prudent majority would have unrec'ed it. Right?

[kentuck]

25. But if everybody votes to recommend...

it must be true, right? How could everybody be wrong?

[Odin2005]

24. 1. Check for logical coherence. 2. see if it is falsifiable. 3. compare with old info.

[pscot]

27. Experience, evidence, context

I read, and keep the TV turned off. Watching television actually creates a wisdom deficit. True fact.

[Rex]

28. Series!? Did you take the red pill?

Because the blue one was much better.

[sazerac]

29. If it sounds unbelievable

it usually is.

[dmallind]

30. Depends

The more extraordinary the claim the more I will be skeptical, and seek out verification from different and if possible disinterested sources.

Some things I don't care whether they are true or not - most DU anecdotes about personal experiences fall into this category for example. Some claims are on their face baseless without further verification - using those personal anecdotes to extrapolate societal or even universal truths for example, and I seek out factual data only if I care about the subject or need to rebut the original claim to make a salient point.

What I'm generally going to care about and verify are claims that affect either society in general or me personally, and which seem outlandish. If someone claimed for example that unemployment where I live were 11% I would not bother verifying. If it's wrong it's not by much as I live in an area a bit less economically strong than the country in general. If they claimed then it was tough to find work here for a moderately or low skilled worker I would not seek verification but assume that is generally the case. If they claimed however that there were NO jobs for such workers and unemployment was above great depression rates, I would find this unlikely and seek out more dispassionate sources of valid data.

The more credible a source is (based on past performance, disinterested nature, use of data rather than stories, and transparency in methodology) the more I will accept without verification, but again with limits. If Richard Dawkins says that there exist fossil and current lifeforms which show intermediary steps in the development of the human eye, I'm likely going to accept that such exist. It's his field, he's been shown to be right far more than wrong, and so on. If on the other hand he claims all theologians are pedophiles (he doesn't of course) I'm going to be pretty skeptical and need to see proof. Not his field, and not a normal claim.

This is a good example - creationist claims are by definition extraordinary. We have seen no examples of creation occur, seen no relics of the process, and cannot even design an objective test to look for any. Evolutionary biology on the other hand can produce thousands of examples, and all known examples conform to what evolutionary biologists claim would have happened in a known process that is very well defined. So if a creationist claims a new species has popped into existence by divine fiat yesterday I am going to need proof aplenty. If another biologist reveals yet another fossil species has been found in the appropriate stratum and demonstrating expected levels of development yesterday I'll probably take their word for it.

[Peacetrain]

31. Three days... let it settle out..the first rush is nearly always wrong

[Iterate]

32. Epistemology in GD? What’s going on here?

OK, so I’ll begin with skepticism but take it as an honest question. Everything goes on the “maybe” shelf. On comes the bullshit detector, get out the toolkit.

Patterns are everywhere, even where they aren’t. Our own brains will lie to us. It’s a big world full of little overloaded brains and slippery language, so we need each other. Belief, anecdote, and magical thinking aren’t worth a damn. Logic is useful, but beware of large logical constructs. We need each other. Trusted observers are good, preferably a host of them. Point-of-view and self-interest sort of screws that up though. Having a theory helps keep it simple. Repeatability works, until it doesn’t. Consistency matters, unless there’s far too much of it.

I guess that means that most things stay on the “maybe” shelf.

[NNN0LHI]

33. Depends who is saying it. Documented past deceit is the best indicator

Not a 100% but pretty accurate.

Don

[stray cat]

34. Gauge the opinion of DUers and assume uninformed group think is accurate

:sarcasm:

[scarletwoman]

35. A number of criteria are involved: Is the source known and trusted based on past verfications?

Does the item include verifiable internal evidence? Does it mesh with what I already empirically know (not "believe") to be true? Is it free of emotionally-charged or dogmatic rhetoric and/or tautology? Is it free of logical fallacies? Is it internally consistent and logically coherent?

I do my best to not allow my "gut feelings" override rational analysis and fact-checking. Often my gut feelings are correct, but I don't allow them to outweigh the need for verifiable evidence.

Plus, I'm an accomplished cynic -- that helps a lot.