UKC

In line with the other thread about internet forums that I just started, I'm wondering what constitutes a sound and acceptable source for data, opinions and ideas or news.

I'm sure we all know that this forum denigrates the use of the Daily Mail as a source but why? Why is Wikipedia acknowledged as reasonable but with suspicion as a caveat. Is government always a legitimate source? I mean what about sexed up dossiers. Government doesn't always tell the truth (hopefully this is sufficiently accepted as to be a reasonable example to illustrate my point without the need to pick that particular example to pieces).

I'm wondering then, for the purposes of internet forum based discourse what sources would you trust and why and what sources are completely unacceptable and why?

In reply to EZ: On the whole, it seems that sources which confirm your world view are acceptable, those which challenge your world view are not acceptable! (Using 'your' in the general sense, not personally)

In reply to EZ:


Interesting that whilst an argument completely unrelated to the Internet Forums thread is raging on that thread... nobody is up for arguing this one! It surprises me (to a point). Maybe it's a bit too close to home? Maybe it's not a valid debate?

So it seems that by default Daily Mail is out and New Scientist is in? Peer reviewed studies shall not be questioned (let alone the peer review process) but personal experience shall not be admitted because there is no 'evidence' to back it up?

Maybe it is just not possible for the people who debate other topics to view the subject objectively?

Recommended reading: Manufacturing Consent - Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman. Admittedly it is written from a quote unquote leftist position though that discounted it still gives a good format for appreciating some of the criteria for assessing the validity of sources.

In reply to owlart:

Sorry Owlart. My post was deleted and re-written above to be less inflammatory. I am actually interested in what the forum participants think and not in getting their backs up again!

In reply to owlart:

What is the name given for preferentially seeking supportive evidence?

In reply to EZ:

possibly confirmation bias, although that isnt so much seeking supportive evidence as ignoring inconvenient evidence.

In reply to dissonance:

Is confirmation bias toward data from accepted sources legit?

In reply to EZ:

New Scientist!? Better off with the Beano. I bought one (NS) a few months ago and was actually shocked at how superficial the articles were and some of the views presented in the editorial and interviews, were presented as established facts. IMV very irresponsible as the readership has a varied level of scientific awareness/understanding. I remember feeling disgusted actually, completely dumbed down and condescending too