Yes, that is a good indicator. I think the problem arises when there are multiple "facts" that can't be analyzed, because we can't find the source for the the "facts," or there are multiple competing sources and there is no way to determine which one is correct. I think this is especially true when dealing with govt. sources that are put out there anonomously.
Yes, that is a good indicator. I think the problem arises when there are multiple "facts" that can't be analyzed, because we can't find the source for the the "facts," or there are multiple competing sources and there is no way to determine which one is correct. I think this is especially true when dealing with govt. sources that are put out there anonomously.
I agree. But that kind of fact is just propaganda. There is very little I read that I do not verify independently. And I have lots of red flags that discredit a source for me - over-reliance on stats, use of emotional language, an intro to establish the writer's bona fides.
Yes, that is a good indicator. I think the problem arises when there are multiple "facts" that can't be analyzed, because we can't find the source for the the "facts," or there are multiple competing sources and there is no way to determine which one is correct. I think this is especially true when dealing with govt. sources that are put out there anonomously.
I agree. But that kind of fact is just propaganda. There is very little I read that I do not verify independently. And I have lots of red flags that discredit a source for me - over-reliance on stats, use of emotional language, an intro to establish the writer's bona fides.
Why is over-reliance on stats one of your red flags?
Those are good points, thanks, I'll use them.