I am sorry, but that is a narrow view and bordering Scientism.
I suppose it might depend on you definition of data, but if you include such topics as hope, or the future, or esoteric topics, hypothetics, and abstracts then finding data is less apparent or even necessary.
Richard
@jammycakes, thanks for starting this thread. It’s a really important topic.
I read the articles and watched the videos that are referenced in the Cranky Uncle article. They were great! Particularly because they were accessible.
Few people out in the “real world” have any experience with formal logic or rhetoric, and would find anything like them intimidating and confusing. It doesn’t mean they’re dumb, just that they aren’t used to using this kind of abstract thinking and don’t approach the world in a purely logical way. Using FLICC as a model keeps the list short and relies on relatable concepts. I like it.
We need all the tools we can get for sniffing out bad arguments and worse. I think FLICC is a good one to add to the tool box.
Do people have any other good “crap detecting” tools they like to use, or encourage others to use?
@Randy your reference to federal websites echoes my experiences. In my profession, librarianship, we regularly use all sorts of US government-produced information for our work. In the past 10 or so years, nearly all federal publications have moved from print to websites. In spite of the drawbacks of print, all the copies can’t be altered or removed overnight from a single desk. Some federal data has been removed from websites, other has been or is being altered. Knowing the kinds of pressures being exerted on various federal agencies, I don’t feel I can rely on m/any of those formerly useful resources any more.
So you are not going to demonstrate any connection between your god and the ‘prime mover’, you’re just going to continue to assert they are the same, while shifting the goalposts as well. [1]
An excellent illustration of a bad argument.
Misrepresentation, miscomprehension and avoidance of the original claim I was responding to.
Another excellent illustration of bad argumentation.
‘Resurrection’ is an attribute of your god that is not an attribute of the ‘prime mover’.
From Christianity to classical Christian theism. ↩︎
I find that if an article is wrong about topics I’m familiar with, it’s likely to be wrong about topics I’m unfamiliar with too.
Good point.
This always requires readers to exercise the epistemic humility that notices they are out of their depth.
But how does one talk with the PhD in Alchemy or Astrology?
Was that humor/sarcasm? Which it must have been if it was with regard to Terry’s prior post with the UFO poster pic. But your post doesn’t show what it is replying to.
I wasn’t sure if St. Roymond was riffing off my post or not.
Kendel, thank you. I agree–the change to websites increases the risk of misinformation. That is a great point.
The current misinformation increase raises a good point–how do we encourage people to think critically? FLICC is a good start, considering the very good comments here, too.
What is that? 
I am a bit ignorant of some images and memes! (translation: nerd)
A police tazer stun-gun.
Thanks Kendel. That’s why I like it so much. I’m always on the lookout for easy-to-understand explanations of basic techniques that anyone can apply to filter out bad arguments, or at the very least to see why their arguments aren’t persuasive.
That’s very similar to the FizzBuzz Principle that I’ve mentioned before.
If an argument makes mistakes in dealing with the elementary basics that anyone can check, it’s pretty much a given that it isn’t going to fare any better when it comes to the more advanced details that are beyond you.
There is a huge problem when people have to rely not only on “experts in the field” but experts who vet the field. Most information professionals like me, are generalists and not subject experts. We have a long history of relying on the NIH and PubMed for example. NOAA for climate resources. All kinds of stuff. And now?
I recently looked at other countries’ websites for information. Even though the US public has been funding real research for centuries, it is now unreliable to the non expert, because non experts are not able to vet it on their own.
Absolutely. A friend and I discussed relying more on WHO; Paul Offit and American Association of Pediatricians, American Board of Internal Medicine, and American Board of Family Medicine. It is beyond frustrating.
I need to remember a level of trust in people who question things, and cherish their curiosity and skepticism, realizing they really have good intent–they are just so confused.
Jesus had pity on the people, because they were like sheep without a shepherd.
It is a bad argument to assert that endorsement by a fake expert shows that a claim is true. It is particularly bad to claim that “he’s got a PhD, so it must be true even though thousands of people with more relevant PhDs say it’s wrong.” But not everything that the fake expert says is false. C. S. Lewis made the point in an essay titled “Horrid Red Things” - in his example, a child asserted that something was poison and so had horrid red things in it. Obviously, the kid has limited understanding of chemistry, but that doesn’t mean that the substance in question is safe to consume.
It’s also important to be careful to check what a real expert is actually saying. Even without any recent political meddling, PubMed seeks to provide access to the literature and does not exclude poor quality work. “I found it through PubMed” does not prove that the NIH approved of the study.
In general, having a high level of skepticism towards data that supports what I want to be true is a prudent approach.
Questioning things is fine.
Abusing the good reputation of historically reliable publishing platforms in order to pass off “questioning” as established science is unforgivable.
That is a great point. Cochrane and other sites assess validity much better.
I remember someone telling me that the fact a conspiracy oriented book was recognized as a book by the Library of Congress, was proof it was valid. It does show that innocent ignorance can be wider spread than we realize.
Excellent.
What is it?
It’s a compilation of review articles (comparing existing articles across similar characteristics and assessing them for validity).
I need to use it more. I often use “Up to Date,” which is run by experts in various fields, and they assess and supply relevant studies, so it’s fairly helpful too, but it’s not free www.utdol.com
One tool doesn’t do everything a library staff or patron group might need. Will this one cover the bases needed? How much does it cost?
I mean above what Americans have already paid for research and resources we used to be able to use.
My library has a cut to deal with for this new fiscal year. Always at the collections line first. We are looking for subscriptions to cut.
Currently things like Cochrane are a luxury good.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
