4 ms·
This. Assume everything is false until proven otherwise.
by donatj 8y ago
This. Assume everything is false until proven otherwise.
- x220 8y agoI don't go that far. I tend to look at a few things: * what is the source? do they have a reputable history? * do they have conflicts of interest? * do they have a history of faithfully printing retractions and admitting mistakes, or a history of exaggerating facts? * do they have a history of writing accurately about subjects I am an expert about? (e.g. subfields of computer science) If they score pretty well, I tend to believe in the facts (and evaluate the interpretation) they espouse until I come across something that contradicts it. So far the only source I regularly trust is the Economist, but I haven't researched the history of many news organizations. It's just a starting point for me.
- kadendogthing 8y agoThat is terribly inefficient.
- craftyguy 8y agoThat is very effective.
- kadendogthing 8y agoNot really. There is a whole host of information that you'd never be able to operate on, mainly because you as a person do not have the time or expertise to discern what's true and what's not on every subject that comes up.
- philliphaydon 8y ago“Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see”
- matt4077 8y agoSo every time you let your spouse take your car you do a DNA test to make sure they haven't been switched with a look-alike? That's just a somewhat extreme illustration of how you, and everybody else, has to rely on heuristics to evaluate statements. It's impossible to even prove a tenth of percentage points of the facts you rely on daily from first principle.