"Acceptable" Sources

We're given these utterly ridiculous notions about where or from whom we should get our information. So many times in a debate between two people, I've heard one express the opinion that the other's point is invalid because it came from an "unacceptable" source. How many times have you heard that "a Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source"? Some people go so far as to discredit any information found on the Internet. Or YouTube. Or the television. Certain newspapers or magazines. Etc., etc..

Now, it's good to be cautious about from where you get your information. I'm all for that -- in fact, I think I made a post recently about exactly that. But a source should only be disqualified if the information it's presenting is proven untrustworthy. Even then, good information can come from the most unlikely of places. The information should be the focus of attention, the thing that is tested first. Blanket generalizaions like "Wikipedia articles are unreliable" are ridiculous. I say blanket generalizations in themselves are unreliable.

Some sources are more reliable than others, this is true. But look at the information sources commonly held to be "reliable" or "acceptable", and you'll notice that they all have one thing in common: they're all servants of the established order. If you learned it in school, it's reliable. If it was written in a newspaper, it's reliable. If it was written in a book, it's reliable. An academic journal. A scientific peer-review paper (these actually are some of the best sources). Etc., etc..

Is this a realistic viewpoint? I say not, and here's why: when you get down to it, every information source is really just another human mind. A human being wrote the textbook from which you were taught "history" in school. A human being wrote every article Wikipedia has to offer. When looked at in this (much more realistic) manner, the focus comes off the source of information and back onto the information itself, where it properly belongs.

The establishment sells the populace this idea of "a list of acceptable sources" to ensure its survival, and the populace buys it because it relieves them of the burden of critical thinking and analysis. The six o'clock news is an "acceptable source", so when it tells us that the World Trade Center towers fell because of Islamic extremists, most of us don't bother to question that, analyze its logic, or go digging for facts. When it tells us that electric, solar-powered cars are not yet a viable, affordable product, we swallow that just as easily. If I were to try to refute either of these claims, and my sources were Wikipedia and YouTube, my claims would be dismissed out-of-hand by many -- no matter how good my evidence, no matter how careful my logic. I have "unacceptable sources".

Poppycock! The six o'clock news and I have the same sources: human minds. And to be honest, in general I trust the collective self-editing of Wikipedia much more readily than I do the mainstream media outlets -- they all disseminate the same story from the same newswire!

Beware attacks on the messenger rather than on the message. Let no source be "automatically" more acceptable than another. Take the time; put forth the effort; do your own thinking.

Good Post Rogue,

Thanks

Whilst I agree with your last statement about doing our own thinking, I am going to have to add my own thoughts to the rest of what you are expressing here.

Having studied a science degree of which critical thinking was a main component, I have to say that not believing what is written merely by the credentials of the author is only one part of the process. Yes the message is the focus and it's validity what is at stake - therefore, checking to see if there are other articles/authors who also subscribe to the view expressed is another part of critical thinking. Many people believe if an idea is popular it must hold some weight, which is yet another. Popularity does not make it true (eg man has walked on the moon). Rightly so you also mentioned source as in the media presenting the information (I heard it on the news so it has to be right...). No it doesn't.

I disagree that all information comes from a human mind. In some cases the human being may be a conduit for other intelligences. In some cases the information comes from something entirely different altogether.

Blanket statements and absolutes are rarely accurate however with Wikipedia I have come across numerous instances of errors including some deliberately made by people to mislead others. I would advise using it with caution. Generally speaking if I need a quick overview of a subject I will use Wiki and then do my own independent research to gather a broader understanding or to clarify and verify information found there. Most Universities do not accept it as a suitable source as it is basically open to any man and his pet iguana to edit. Even journal articles and research papers are open to scrutiny as there is always room for human error, in particular when experiments are the basis of the gained knowledge. There is an empirical code for creating and carrying out experiments as well as ethical considerations. Something as simple as using an incorrect sample or researcher bias can give false findings.

Basically, acceptable sources is a personal consideration each individual must make for themselves. What is it you wish to know and through which lens do you wish to perceive the answer? For some, another person's experience may suffice as an acceptable source. For another, even the most inexhaustible search of the web, media, scientific research and other literature will not produce an adequate answer. In which case, perhaps it is up to the seeker to examine whether the question they are asking is really the one they want answered and whether they have already found what they were looking for and simply not accepted what they have discovered.