The internet is a fantastic medium; at no other time in human history could one ever connect with so many people so effortlessly. At the click of a button you can find people on the other side of the world and engage then in discussion; glean insight into topics that you didn't know existed and learn more about people that you've never met than the people that you run into everyday.
There are ordinary people, not celebrities or other personalities, who have thousands of followers on things like Google+, Twitter and FaceBook. Thousands of people are interested in what they post, thousands of people want to know what they think. Isn't that amazing?
Just twenty years ago, if you wanted thousands of people to know who you were you would have needed to be a celebrity of some kind, have written a best selling book or been globally notorious in some way. How safe the world has become when global recognition is but a profile picture, witty bio and a few hundred inconsequential posts away.
There is a problem with this though. A big problem.
We live most our lives based on incomplete or inaccurate information at the best of times and the internet has made it even more easy for this detritus to be disseminated; but instead of maybe a couple dozen people being poorly informed by a piece of wayward and spurious information with the further ease of dissemination made somewhat awkward by lines of social separation, now thousands of people at a time can be deluded and/or mislead by poorly researched 'fact sharing' almost instantly.
The skill of scientific inquiry might be foreign to many people and most other people seem to have zero critical reasoning skills but surely when you disseminate information it only serves to better yourself to take a little time and research what you are sharing.
Sadly, people don't. We're all guilty of this too; "that looks interesting" and hitting 'share' without a second thought.
Sadly, people don't. We're all guilty of this too; "that looks interesting" and hitting 'share' without a second thought.
The problem is we've grown up on analogies and believing what our parents have told us is true because they are the ones who said it. We are, in a way, hardwired to accept things as a given because it come from a source other than ourselves, a source that has a website maybe or a news publication or magazine, because only people who really know what they are talking about are allowed these... right?
However, it is not just the general populace who are guilty of this spurious fact sharing through a lack of homework. Major news publications and magazines can get things wrong or omit important information based on their own bias. Hell, even academic journals have had some real doozies slip through the net and get published; how do you think the 'vaccinations cause Autism' rumour started? That came out of the The Lancet, a very serious and credible academic journal. After it was published it was immediately retracted and the author discredited but the damage was done, the story took on a life of it's own. That's all it took and people believed it and ran with it and are still running with it 17 years later.
Nowadays it is absolutely possible for a single person on the internet to have as much influence as an academic journal. On the ambiguous and anonymous world of the internet you can be anyone you like, few are completely honest. So if Dr John Doe PhD posts up a persuasive article that appears to be from a good source, who are we, these mere mortals, to question it?
Take a look at Answers in Genesis for a fantastic example of this. They have genuine academics putting their names to the things they publish and to someone unlearned in the areas, which can be quite technical at times, these are credible and believable sources of information. They are cleverly written too, so even when you check the information out much of it turns out to be true but the devil is in the detail here; single snippets of information or statistics may be true but when applied to the whole article they are false.
Take this example from the "venerable" Answers in Genesis;
New Australopithecine species said to show diversity in humanity’s evolutionary history.
"Haile-Selassie’s team found the two lower jaws and a partial upper jaw unearthed by erosion near the Burtele tuff in Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region. Based on radiometric and paleomagnetic dating of the strata in the region, Haile-Selassie and colleagues believe Australopithecus deyiremeda to be 3.3 to 3.5 million years old. This overlaps with the age of 2.9 to 3.8 million years old currently assigned to Australopithecus afarensis fossils, which are also from the Afar Region."
[This part is TRUE; as is verified by a number of different credible sources to the discovery of this new species http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14448.html]
"Evolutionary scientists consider this fossil discovery to be significant because it demonstrates that diverse species of early human ancestors coexisted in time and space. [...] However, while there may well have once been multiple species of australopithecine apes in Africa, australopithecine fossils are the remains of extinct apes and have no connection to humanity’s lineage [...] Convinced then that people are just highly evolved animals, evolutionists connect the dots between fossils, comparing their characteristics and adaptations in an effort to draw a path to man."
[This part is FALSE; primarily because it is a tactful but fantastic misinterpretation of what science actually says about human evolution]
The difficult thing for most here, once you start digging for validity, is that the author of this is Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who really did get her degrees from real Universities and now writes for Answers in Genesis. A real academic commenting on a real topic. However, as I said, the devil is in the detail and the mix of real facts and made-up biblical nonsense is smooth enough to fool most people.
1) Well, screw your thinking head on is job one. Basically speaking, everything should be treated with equal levels of open-mindedness and skepticism. You might like the information in the article but is it accurate?
2) Background searching - If the article or link isn't initially from a credible source can it be followed back to one? Often you might find blog entries that don't cite sources or website articles with no author or references. That's fine, just Google the topic or heading and see what pops up. If you have an author for the article then just Google them and see what pops up first. If it's an academic page like a .edu or .ac.uk or other credible source then that is a good start.
Most times a quick Google of the author or the topic will be enough to figure out if the article in question is worth sharing or complete BS.
This is where step 3 comes in; Research!
Yeah yeah, I know, boring right? But if you think it's worth sharing then it's worth looking into. This is the part where you put your detective's hat on your thinking head.
This can be a little more involved but in return you become much better informed and the more you do this the less time it will take you to research something, even something you have no experience dealing with. Eventually you will not only amass a great deal of knowledge and understanding in many different areas but you'll also be able to smell the detritus hidden in an article by the first paragraph.
Take this article recently posted on Google+ community Forbidden Archaeology which is a community with a rather annoying mix of very good archaeology related posts and pseudoscience/conspiracy theory rubbish. Sadly the latter outnumbers the former most of the time.
The article headline reads -
A 38-Centimeter Long Finger Found in Egypt; Evidence of the Nephilim?
The source? www.ancient-code.com
The Author? Ivan Petricevic.
Thank you for reading as always.
A.R. Bell 2015
So how do we, as commentators and active members of social media, avoid sharing spurious information?
1) Well, screw your thinking head on is job one. Basically speaking, everything should be treated with equal levels of open-mindedness and skepticism. You might like the information in the article but is it accurate?
2) Background searching - If the article or link isn't initially from a credible source can it be followed back to one? Often you might find blog entries that don't cite sources or website articles with no author or references. That's fine, just Google the topic or heading and see what pops up. If you have an author for the article then just Google them and see what pops up first. If it's an academic page like a .edu or .ac.uk or other credible source then that is a good start.
Most times a quick Google of the author or the topic will be enough to figure out if the article in question is worth sharing or complete BS.
But then what happens when you run into an Answers in Genesis type situation where the article contains both junk and credible information and written by someone credible?
This is where step 3 comes in; Research!
Yeah yeah, I know, boring right? But if you think it's worth sharing then it's worth looking into. This is the part where you put your detective's hat on your thinking head.
This can be a little more involved but in return you become much better informed and the more you do this the less time it will take you to research something, even something you have no experience dealing with. Eventually you will not only amass a great deal of knowledge and understanding in many different areas but you'll also be able to smell the detritus hidden in an article by the first paragraph.
Take this article recently posted on Google+ community Forbidden Archaeology which is a community with a rather annoying mix of very good archaeology related posts and pseudoscience/conspiracy theory rubbish. Sadly the latter outnumbers the former most of the time.
The article headline reads -
A 38-Centimeter Long Finger Found in Egypt; Evidence of the Nephilim? The source? www.ancient-code.com
The Author? Ivan Petricevic.
Firstly approach with open-mindedness and skepticism - a 38-centimeter long finger!!? Your next question is probably; what the hell is a Nephilim??
Google 'Nephilim' - first hit as always; Wikipedia. It's as good a place to start as anywhere else;
The Nephilim were offspring of the "sons of god" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge according to Genesis 6:4 the name is also used in reference to giants who inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan according to Numbers 13:33. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim]
Hmmm, ok, Bible references, not typically a good place for accurate information but let's not jump to any rash conclusions at this stage, let's see what the bulk of the article has to say. The article also starts with a quote from Genesis. Maybe the author is just setting the scene, so again, no rash conclusions. Let's do a quick scan in the article fro source material and references...
Nope, no sources at all. So not a greatest start as far as informative writing goes. Let's look at some more content and see if we can get to the bottom of this. In the opening paragraph the author makes two statements of fact; that the finger has a "certificate of authenticity" and it was "published in one of Europe's leading newspapers BILD.de in 1988".
Let's Google 'Nephilim Finger' - There is a section on the Wiki about misidentification of fossil remains; ah, it dates to a supposed finger discovered in the 18th century, likely not this one. The Google search returned only this article and a host of other articles from various websites like Before it is News, GameFaqs and NW Creation Network. Not one credible website, certainly no mention of a certificate of authenticity, which is in itself odd. This isn't looking good.
Let's check out the author, there is a bio page on ancient-code; it has a number of articles written by him seemingly centered around extra-terrestrial interpretations of various subjects from Nikola Tesla to underwater circles in Croatia made by UFOs, he has no academic affiliations and it doesn't list any kind of educational background, which is not uncommon, though it would be nice to see.
OK, so far this isn't looking like anything more than vague speculation and story telling.
The article headline proposes a question; is this "artifact" proof of the existence of Nephilim? Which we now know are apparently giants who inhabited Canaan (present day Lebanon, Israel, Palestine Jordan and Syria).
So if the headline or title poses a question, should it not address it in the text and then reach a conclusion? So what does it conclude? Well, actually..., nothing. It doesn't answer the question posed in the heading. It ends rather ambiguously with the same question just after concluding "researchers have mixed feelings when it comes to this ancient relic" [no citation to say which researchers though].
This took me less than 15 minutes to figure out that this article, though possibly containing some accurate information about the various people involved, does not contain anything worth sharing as it appears to be entirely speculative and full of analogy and outright fiction.
What's the problem here? People like fiction and analogy can be a valuable tool in sharing information.
Yes, this is true. However, when the article makes statements of fact which are in no way substantiated by any form of reliable evidence from any kind of reliable source what it is essentially doing is lying to you; passing off fiction as though it were fact and hiding behind the lack of evidence (which makes it difficult for you to find out the truth).
Firstly, it makes it very hard to get to the bottom of what is being said.
The reason why good factual writing contains references and bibliographies is so you, the reader can not only check the validity of what is being said, the original author(s) of referenced work get the correct accreditation but more importantly, you also are given avenues for further reading to better your knowledge of the topic.
Secondly; It asks something of you that no factual writing should ever ask - to believe what is being written; to take what you have read as fact simply because it is presented as such.
The article headline proposes a question; is this "artifact" proof of the existence of Nephilim? Which we now know are apparently giants who inhabited Canaan (present day Lebanon, Israel, Palestine Jordan and Syria).
So if the headline or title poses a question, should it not address it in the text and then reach a conclusion? So what does it conclude? Well, actually..., nothing. It doesn't answer the question posed in the heading. It ends rather ambiguously with the same question just after concluding "researchers have mixed feelings when it comes to this ancient relic" [no citation to say which researchers though].
This took me less than 15 minutes to figure out that this article, though possibly containing some accurate information about the various people involved, does not contain anything worth sharing as it appears to be entirely speculative and full of analogy and outright fiction.
What's the problem here? People like fiction and analogy can be a valuable tool in sharing information.
Yes, this is true. However, when the article makes statements of fact which are in no way substantiated by any form of reliable evidence from any kind of reliable source what it is essentially doing is lying to you; passing off fiction as though it were fact and hiding behind the lack of evidence (which makes it difficult for you to find out the truth).
This lack of evidence/references/substantiation is a common tactic in the dissemination of detritus. It's effect is twofold.
The reason why good factual writing contains references and bibliographies is so you, the reader can not only check the validity of what is being said, the original author(s) of referenced work get the correct accreditation but more importantly, you also are given avenues for further reading to better your knowledge of the topic.
Secondly; It asks something of you that no factual writing should ever ask - to believe what is being written; to take what you have read as fact simply because it is presented as such.
What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Carl Sagan
~
A.R. Bell 2015
#LogicShotgun
@ARB_itrary
No comments:
Post a Comment