How to see the truth in a sea of ​​misinformation: 12 tips from John Grant

1. Ignore minor details

churning method confusing - a favorite technique of speakers with a shaky argumentation support. Thus, answering the question posed by an opponent, they can pour tons of information not exist, create the illusion that to defend their point of view.

This technique is especially can be clearly illustrated by the political press conferences, providing communication with the audience figure.

2. Consider how much is actually authoritative sources quoted

Example: the conflict between the representative of the Republican Party, John Huntsman and philanthropist Rush Limbaugh in 2011. Huntsman posted on Twitter a message, in which he confessed that he believed in the theory of global warming, as long Republicans reject. Conservative Rush Limbaugh called Huntsman nonsense words, and the theory itself - a hoax and fake.

Are Huntsman and Limbaugh authorities? Absolutely. Rights if each of them? Of course not. Remember that the only authoritative source determined by its competence in the matter under discussion. Popularity, merit and respect in any field does not make a person an expert in all areas.

3. Check the context above quotation

Example: reduction of a specific part of the quote authoritative film criticism on the DVD cover. The inscription reads: "The enthusiasm which simply does not put into words." Original quote: "With these stars and this budget is set to experience the delight that is simply beyond words. What a pity that the final result was nightmarish nowhere... "

This example is a bit far-fetched, but it is very visual. Sometimes the use of selective citation is much less obvious, and that's why more dangerous. So, creationists are fond of quoting the words of Darwin's about the absurdity of the assumption that the complex structure of the human eye could appear an evolutionary way. However, the anti-Darwinists forget to point out that this is only the beginning of the argument, after which the author of this assumption does not seem absurd.

4. Make sure that was not applied to get personal

Example: the conflict that occurred in 2009 between the theory of climate change denier Christopher Monckton and Professor Saint Thomas University, John Abraham. Moncton read the report on the insolvency of the theory of global warming, backed by his seemingly impressive arguments.

Abraham prepared a whole scientific work aimed to refute Monckton's report and assured support for many reputable scientists, anti-scientific treatise Moncton smashed to smithereens. Answer quack did not wait long. For example, he said that the attacks of Abraham "poisonous and children" that his voice was "annoyingly friendly", and the person at all like the "overcooked shrimp."

No need to be a scientist to understand that the transition to the individual (a trick called "straw man"), Implemented Moncton, said the insolvency of his position and the inability to defend it in a fair scientific discussion.

5. Look for the original sources

Do not settle for reprints of articles adapted for the average user, and information of "Wikipedia". If you want to get to the truth, do not be lazy to find the original sources, and then check the credibility of scientific journals that published the information.

Example: title "Exoplanets where we fly provedyvat grandchildren" that precedes an article about the newly discovered exoplanets. Title does not tell the reader that the possibility of life on these planets is only a hypothesis, and celestial bodies themselves are at a distance of 40 light years. Based on the header, the objectivity of this adaptation is very doubtful.

6. Beware of labeling and stereotyping

Example: Nazi propaganda during the Second World War. Nazis convinced the German people that representatives of certain groups (eg, Slavs and Jews) are not fully human, and must be destroyed.

Labeling - a common practice in today's public battles. So, the Liberals tend to equate conservatives fascists and American opposition to Obama often stereotyped as socialists, Marxists, Nazis, Islamists and atheists. Not only that such categorization had no relation to reality and the labels themselves clearly contradict each other. If one of the parties seeks to stigmatize the opponent, then the probability of failure of his argument is quite high.

7. Remember, a lot of special cases still is not proof!

Example: certificate of unidentified flying objects. Indeed, thousands of people have seen UFOs but this does not mean that the Earth periodically visited by aliens.

Professional liars are betting on the fact that most of us argues as follows: if on a particular event according to many people, it must be true.

Of course, there is always the possibility that such stories are without foundation, deserves further study. But it is necessary to present the scientific study of individual stories, not to take them all together.

8. Be suspicious if someone is constantly changing rules of the game in an attempt to convince you

Example: Creationist claims to provide proof of the existence of intermediate links of evolution. Let's say there are two types: A and B. Opponents of the theory of evolution Darwinists call to give them an argument: finding an intermediate between the two species. Suppose archaeologists have found evidence of the existence of a transitional period - of C. In response, the creationists do not cease to bring claims where the transitional forms between fossil A and C? A between C and B?

This example demonstrates why this trick the author gave the name "offset gate strips." In such a trick he reproaches and opponents of global warming theories that argue their position the fact that winter is still the case of strong snowstorm.

9. Watch out for false balance in the news

The point of equilibrium between truth and falsity - is still the same... a lie.

Example television debate on supernormal phenomena or e.g. conspiracy theory. The fact is that in any, even the most obvious questions end up getting one disagrees.

The Americans were on the moon? Who would argue. Earth is round? It is absurd, but someone does not agree with this.

The media often use this technique to show the two points of view and give the viewer the freedom to choose between them. Thus the media themselves remain neutral. Never mind that one of the participants of the debate can be frank liar.

10. Do not believe the first explanation is only because they do not able to explain anything themselves

Example: One of the arguments relating to the lack of their own intellectual development, has led American journalist Bill O'Reilly in an interview with David Silverman in 2011. Not knowing that the tides are explained by the power of attraction of the moon, he copied them to the divine nature of fishing. This is a wonderful example of how a person leans toward the most advantageous for him the point of view due to their own ignorance.

11. If you collected all the evidence supports your beliefs, ensure their objectivity

Passionately seeking to defend their point of view, people often neglect some arguments in favor of the other, which is the most common cause of various errors.

Our main enemy in the search for truth is not a propagandist and not a politician. The main enemy - ourselves.

using rational approach to search for the truth, people will inevitably dooms itself to the fact that he will have to change or adjust their views on various issues.

12. Use the scientific method at any reasonable means

Fundamentals of hypothetical-deductive method was developed about two centuries ago. This method consists of four steps: the gathering of evidence, hypothesis formulation, the projections, forecasts, check experimentally.

Example: proof of Earth's rotation via the scientific method. First, we collect evidence: a picture of the night sky is modified, there is a certain movement of the Earth relative to the stars. We propose a hypothesis: The Earth rotates on its axis. To make predictions: if the Earth really is subject to rotation, the fluid must be twisted with stock in a relatively narrow openings. Conducting an experiment: watch the water draining into the sink. The experiment confirmed that the hypothesis is true: Earth really rotates.

---

These councils - is only a small part of what can be learned from the book of John Grant "I do not believe! How to see the truth in a sea of ​​misinformation». The author not only describes the mechanisms of deception and propagation of errors, but also provides concrete examples of how this information is to harm people. John Grant is concerned, perhaps, all the popular items of disputes of recent years: the theory of evolution, global warming, mandatory inoculation against disease, astrology. If you want to cultivate a healthy skepticism and critical thinking, we advise not to postpone the reading of this book.

Buy on Litres.ru