Analytical Ability (not Education Level) is key to better identifying misinformation (and information).

[essentialsaltes]

While I appreciate the discussion of partisanship, bias, and the usefulness of examining both sides critically, let's try to avoid sinking into bickering.

The focus of the OP is on:

Evaluating a putative news story. Is it true? Is it misinformation?

How do we become skeptical enough to avoid accepting misinformation as true?
How do we avoid becoming so skeptical we reject information as false?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While I appreciate the discussion of partisanship, bias, and the usefulness of examining both sides critically, let's try to avoid sinking into bickering.

The focus of the OP is on:

Evaluating a putative news story. Is it true? Is it misinformation?

How do we become skeptical enough to avoid accepting misinformation as true?
How do we avoid becoming so skeptical we reject information as false?

The problem here is that possible information and its interpretation is carried along within the Communication process via agents, and we might trust those agents................................or we might be suspicious of them. And this can be in addition to any recognition that any one agent is in fact competent or expert in processing and/or interpreting for the public that possible information.

There's a trust factor in the social dissemination of information and it's not solely a matter of accuracy and comprehensiveness alone.

 

[durangodawood]

From history? Ok. Hitler's Nazis VS. Stalin's Soviets.

That's an extreme example, but I'm sure we could come up with others that fit the pattern.

From our US pov the conflict was liberal democracy vs totalitarianism. So as soon as the Nazis were over, we transitioned to the cold war.

In that context, liberal democracy was not an equally mad proposition to the totalitarian alternatives.

 

[Yttrium]

While I appreciate the discussion of partisanship, bias, and the usefulness of examining both sides critically, let's try to avoid sinking into bickering.

The focus of the OP is on:

Evaluating a putative news story. Is it true? Is it misinformation?

How do we become skeptical enough to avoid accepting misinformation as true?
How do we avoid becoming so skeptical we reject information as false?

One of the key factors, I think, is to recognize the existence of confirmation bias, and consider how it may be affecting you.

 

[durangodawood]

One of the key factors, I think, is to recognize the existence of confirmation bias, and consider how it may be affecting you.

Bingo.

But we're in a time when people prefer to nurse their biases rather than get right with reality. The biases are welded to personal identity.

 

[rambot]

Amazing coincidence or simple observation; this is in line with Scripture and with what Jesus says Himself.
===========================================
This seems obvious also - people who can think freely do better.

"Free thinking" is not a great label for what was described. Analytical thinking has a "Free" component but honestly, "free" tends to suggest wild abandon. Analytical thinking is structured and methodical usually.

 

[rambot]

Let's see. OPs in this forum are supposed to link to a credible news source. Does phys.org qualify? When an alleged science article includes a sentence with the clause "With the rise of right-wing populism..." and then in the next paragraph implies that we need to teach our kids not to be right-wing populists...there, I've identified some misinformation for you. You're welcome.

Here's a GREAT example of analytical thinking done poorly.

 

[Chesterton]

Wow, thanks for providing a great example of my point!

Thanks for missing my point. I don't pick a side, a side picks me.

Here's a GREAT example of analytical thinking done poorly.

How so?

 

[rambot]

How so?

Ok...

Let's see. OPs in this forum are supposed to link to a credible news source.

This is like pretending to be analytical...and fair enough. It's an expectation here.

Does phys.org qualify?

Yes.

When an alleged science article

There is nothing "alleged" about the science article. Here is an example of "free thought"...but not "analytical thinking". You are FREE to say WHATEVER you want, but analytical thinkers, are bound by the definition of words.

includes a sentence with the clause "With the rise of right-wing populism..."

1) This is a factual statement in that the phenomenon is, in fact, getting more popular....and given that it's, presumably, your political leanings, I don't see why you'd fight the statement...look....what you believe is becoming more popular.
2) The inclusion of this statement in a scientific article, makes perfect sense if one is studying the the affects of misinformation.

and then in the next paragraph implies that we need to teach our kids not to be right-wing populists...there, I've identified some misinformation for you.

This characterization of "the next paragraph" is 100% misguided (or..."misinformation"). If you read the paragraph carefully it doesn't say "We need to teach our kids not to be right-wing populists"....it says

"The results highlight the urgent need to integrate media literacy and critical thinking skills into school curricula from an early age. Younger adults, despite being considered 'digital natives,' were less able to distinguish between true and false news," Kurvers continues. More effective and age-appropriate media literacy programs tailored to this group are therefore crucial.

You will note it doesn't mention "right wing" at all. In fact, it doesn't allude to ANY political group/wing...in ANY WAY. What it says is that educations needs to increase a certain type of education.

Do you believe that we should have LESS "media literacy and critical thinking" taught in school Chesterton?


You claiming to identify misinformation in an article, while misrepresenting the content of the article is just.....

 

[Chesterton]

Ok...


This is like pretending to be analytical...and fair enough. It's an expectation here.


Yes.


There is nothing "alleged" about the science article. Here is an example of "free thought"...but not "analytical thinking". You are FREE to say WHATEVER you want, but analytical thinkers, are bound by the definition of words.


1) This is a factual statement in that the phenomenon is, in fact, getting more popular....and given that it's, presumably, your political leanings, I don't see why you'd fight the statement...look....what you believe is becoming more popular.
2) The inclusion of this statement in a scientific article, makes perfect sense if one is studying the the affects of misinformation.

Phys.org produces "churnalism". If you go to its home page, you'll notice it doesn't link to an "About" page, which is sloppy enough. It presents itself as being about hard science like physics and astronomy.

This characterization of "the next paragraph" is 100% misguided (or..."misinformation"). If you read the paragraph carefully it doesn't say "We need to teach our kids not to be right-wing populists"....it says


You will note it doesn't mention "right wing" at all. In fact, it doesn't allude to ANY political group/wing...in ANY WAY. What it says is that educations needs to increase a certain type of education.

Do you believe that we should have LESS "media literacy and critical thinking" taught in school Chesterton?


You claiming to identify misinformation in an article, while misrepresenting the content of the article is just.....

With only a modicum of reading comprehension, you can understand what's being said.

 

[mindlight]

While I appreciate the discussion of partisanship, bias, and the usefulness of examining both sides critically, let's try to avoid sinking into bickering.

The focus of the OP is on:

Evaluating a putative news story. Is it true? Is it misinformation?

How do we become skeptical enough to avoid accepting misinformation as true?
How do we avoid becoming so skeptical we reject information as false?

Or is this person lying to me or not, how can I tell? How do I know if a thing is true or not?

Trust is key here. Do we have good reason to trust the source? I tend to distrust anything atheists or people of other religions say for example because they are already wrong on the biggest judgment call there is. But that is a faulty assumption when it comes to trusting an observation, deduction, or intuition that they share. For example, I have found that atheists can often be more observant than Christians because accurately perceiving the thing in front of them matters more to them. Similarly, Muslims living the religious life are often more honest about moral fault and motivations having less of the intellectual confusion of Western liberals for example.

So when it comes to a news story there are four main questions:

1) Is the witness trustworthy?
2) Can his observations be tested against other sources?
3) Is his deductive logic sound, faulty, or too simplistic?
4) If not 1) and I pray for him, gaining a deeper feel for his motivations, do I trust his words?

 

[DaisyDay]

Phys.org produces "churnalism". If you go to its home page, you'll notice it doesn't link to an "About" page, which is sloppy enough. It presents itself as being about hard science like physics and astronomy.

Some sites have their "About" link on the top of the page while others put it at the bottom. Phys.org does the latter:

Science X Network :: Phys.org, Medical Xpress, Tech Xplore

Science X network: Science X is a network of high quality websites with most complete and comprehensive daily coverage of the full sweep of science, technology, and medicine news

sciencex.com

With a global reach of over 10 million monthly readers and featuring dedicated websites for science (Phys.org), technology (Tech Xplore) and medical research (Medical Xpress), the Science X network is one of the largest online communities for science-minded people. Science X publishes over 200 quality articles every day, offering the most comprehensive coverage of sci-tech developments worldwide.​

With only a modicum of reading comprehension, you can understand what's being said.

Apparently not.