/lit/ - Literature

>>22862949
i think the first thing we should start with when reading an article for example is to know the source of this article/website/tv

Who owns this website/TV station/newspaper? Do they have a known political agenda? Is it likely that what you just read/saw has a strong leaning based on the owner's personal affiliations?

>>22862949
>How can we prove the reliability of information from sources like internet, tv, etc?
Reliability isn't proven. A car's engine is reliable because it starts enough times, because you can prove an engine works once or twice. If your engine doesn't work, it isn't reliable, and you stop using it.

>>22862949
Read Planecrash and do what Keltham did.

>>22862949
>>22862949
>How can we prove the reliability of information from sources like internet, tv, etc?
A car's engine is reliable because it starts enough times, not because you can prove the concept of an engine works once or twice. Reliability is an emergent situation, not a a static truth.

you dont

>>22862992
but the car is physical and tangible, information's are not anon, nice tits bto

>>22862949
Don't trust any source. Base your decisions on validity and impartiality on a per-article basis, because sources can shift over time, or be bought out and forced to shift drastically in short order.

Never use a single source on any topic. And make sure at least one source you consult is from the opposing view. Read all sources with as little preconception as you can, or if you know you have a bias, attempt to understand the opposition to your bias as well as you can.

>>22862949
I assume all of them are biased and while maybe not outright lying are certainly omitting information that doesn't suit whatever talking point they have, or just lying. Finding data independent of said sources and reaching your own determination is really all anyone can do anon.

>>22863028
>but the car is physical and tangible
There are plenty of tangible physical things that are not reliable.

>>22863094
But you know the car when it's walking and alive and it's doing it's job, how do you detect a bad info?

>>22862949
Most large news services will report facts with integrity, but editorialize some of the language to get more clicks. Getting trustworthy information is simply a matter of ignoring semantics and just focusing on the who/what/where/when.

>>22862949
There are many tactics that they might use. It is up to you to identify if you are a target though, here are some of them:
>Getting you high on "I'm so much better than those other people"
They use this tactic because it works. You may read and article or watch a news report and suddenly you find yourself feeling superior to the people portrayed. The person who wrote the article or narrated the video feels no problem injecting his or her opinion about those people without knowing anything about them "They're obviously racist and sexist. They believe in all kinds of crazy conspiracy theories. They are uneducated, dumb". Feels so good that you're not one of them.
>A call to action
They might say that you have very limited time to act a certain way or do something, otherwise something horrible and irreversible is going to happen. They don't want you to stop and think, you have no time. Also, they are very categorical - they know exactly what is good and what is bad, but they don't have the time to explain. You just need to trust them and do what they want. Give them what they want from you.
>Do not question authority
"Experts say...", "Scientists say...". What are you gonna do? Doubt them? They know what they're doing, it's their job. Are you an expert? Are you scientist? Oh, you did your own research? Look at Mister Harvard over here.
Experts and scientists and researchers can be bought.

>>22863116
>>Do not question authority
this one is very effective especially against weak minded people

>>22862949
Every source of media is going to have some sort of bias, it is the nature of the industry. Even if it wasn't left or right biased, most US media is at the very least US biased.

The healthiest was to consume media is with a healthy amount of skepticism. The only real way to get unbiased media is to sample media from different sources. Watch/read/listen something that is liberally biased and conservatively biased, and then make your own decision about the topic. Learn the bias of the news source, and be particularity skeptical of stories that reflects their narrative. Try to corroborate sources. If you think a new story you hear is a big deal, do more research on it. Be skeptical of sound bites because they can be taken out of context. A good news source will provide transcripts, unedited recordings, picture and document evidence to back up their facts - primary sources are king. If one is saying something that is no one else is reporting, and a Google search fails to find primary sources, then they likely made it up. If a bit of news says another article is a lie without backing it up, they are making a baseless accusation.

Remember when doing this that your filter will be the most biased of them all - remember to be especially skeptical of news stories that reinforce your world view.

I wish it wasn't so hard to do this these days but we've got internet trolls spreading fake news stories on Facebook, and major political candidates and news organisations running with it.

>>22862949
Determining the authenticity of a piece is important, but we have a number of available tools. If it's a more recent document we can analyze the paper (or parchment), ink, handwriting, and grammar/vocabulary to determine whether it appears to have been written when it claims to be, and whether it matches other documents (in handwriting, writing style, vocabulary, etc) from the same author (if any such survive). This is more challenging with older sources, which have often been copied several times before we get them (like, for example, the writings of Plato), but we can use similar tools to analyze the style, grammar, vocabulary, etc to determine if the text is a copy of an original, or a forgery. There have been a number of famous texts (like the donation of constantine) that were identified as later fakes through these methods. All told, we can usually tell if a text is authentic (though some texts continue to be debated).

The question of reliability is much more challenging, and gets into questions of interpretation that are fundamental to the work of historians.

If by reliable we mean 'trustworthy sources of facts that we can count on being true,' we have to throw out most of our sources. Even the most accurate eyewitness is limited by his or her perspective, and faithfully reported 'facts' are always subject to both the interpretation of the person who reports them and the person who reads and interprets them. If our goal were to try to find only the things we could trust for certain in ancient documents, history would be a sad and small discipline.

>>22863242
High quality post, thank you anon

Information is mere data to one who lacks his own noetical formation, and/or is incapable of, or reluctant to, sift through it, and synthesize within knowledge what is salvageable from it.

>>22863101

>>22865691
Nice body

>>22865249
Interesting, do you mean that knowledge is internal not external?

>>22862949
What is true is interrelated with what is condusive to increasing the chances of your immediate survival. In a high stakes scenerio even the most dishonest ideologue will be pressured to favor information that makes it more likely to preserve his life. Since we are rarely put into this type of environment people are incentivized to lie or unwittingly churn out false information and that means you cant trust shit.

Just pick an ideology and selectively consume content from that ideology like everyone else.

>>22866032
>Just pick an ideology and selectively consume content from that ideology like everyone else.

Bad advice.

>>22862949
The same way you determine whether any evidence is trustworthy, corroboration.

>>22863101
>But you know the car when it's walking and alive and it's doing it's job
When this situation emerges multiple times, that's reliability.
>how do you detect a bad info?
What constitutes bad info?

>>22862995
this. read a book on epistemology. this is just the human condition.

>>22862949
Well, we can't. Ever since the postfactual age had started, the only thing you can reliably do is to reason under uncertainty.

>>22866079
>corroboration
is not enough