What approach do you use to validate information and claims people make?

For many people it seems that more often then not it has become difficult to have meaningful discourse between people that have different opinions on a given topic. My hope is that this thread doesn't devolve into that but who knows .

In trying to validate a claim someone made on a different thread it got me thinking , when a claim , statement, thread, post, whatever is made what is the general approach that people take to validate that piece of information?

If a site only seems to validate things that indicate a clear confirmation bias then I try to stay away from those. If it is too pro-democrat, too pro-republican, too pro-this or that then it has been my experience that you aren't going to get unbiased info. That isn't to say that you can't go to CNN or MSN or Fox or smaller more localized sites that obviously lean one way or the other and get unbiased info but that if I use them they won't be the only source.

Coming to an informed decision on any current topic can be challenging at the best of times currently. You have video hosting sites like YouTube or Bitchute that anyone can host something on within the operating rules of that site. Then all you need is one person to Tweet or post on Facebook or hell even here something that isn't accurate, true or verifiable and coming to final decision on a topic can quickly get away from you. That all excludes an inherent leanings, beliefs or ideas on a topic. So when you put it all together, validation can be a challenge.


I have always used factcheck.org as a reliable, non-partisan way to give me a foundation to work on with topics: www.factcheck.org...
Currently on their home page they try to validate or call out hoaxes on things that involve Biden, the various Covid related reports and pretty much any story in between. My normal approach is to start on FactCheck, validate with as many neutral sites as possible and hope that the same general information is reported by 3 or more different sources.

This all lead me to just searching around fact checking in general and thought this post is a pretty solid source of different information, sites and related articles: guides.stlcc.edu...

Linked in the above is a living wiki table that tries to compile what are general considered to be hoax or fake news sites: en.wikipedia.org...


Anyway, I'm interested to see the different approaches people take because you never know when are going to learn something that you previously didnt think of.

It's a great time to be alive.

I can find sources that confirm or deny any belief or ideology one may have!

Truth has been separated from fact.

I check abovetopsecret.com.

I always check Wikipedia and cross reference MSNBC with CNN

I used sources I can’t verify, I observe the world around me. Unfortunately I’m not a reputable source of the news however if I report Tom is boinking Shirley it is true.

The internet made all lies truth and all truth lies, one of them things like always you have to have both to come to your own ideas about a subject I suppose.

a reply to: opethPA
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
Who guards the guards?

Juvenal's question quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who guards the guardians?) remains a central concern of democracy, since the people must always watch over the constitutional behaviour of the leaders and impeach them if they act in contravention of their duties. Constitutional courts must fulfil this need and civil society should show solidarity with human rights defenders and whistleblowers who, far from being unpatriotic, perform a democratic service to their countries and the world.”

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Itisnowagain

The answer to your questions lie in the purpose and practice of free speech.

Its why censorship on any level is bad.

a reply to: opethPA

The registry expiration date is, 2021-09-29T18:02:43Z, for www.factcheck.org...

Maybe I'll be the highest bidder and influence every thought you make!

My first edit will be eggs are again bad for you!

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I remember coming across this a long time ago on Playstation 2 and could not help feeling that the game was breaking the fourth wall with a warning. Makes so much more sense now...



You can't trust anything or anyone, not even yourself (bias).

originally posted by: shasta9600
I always check Wikipedia and cross reference MSNBC with CNN

Great sources to confirm something is bulls#t 🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: opethPA

Usually I check MediaBias to find out who funds the source. So, like in the case of factcheck.org it says:

The Annenberg Foundation owns and funds Factcheck.org. The Annenberg Foundation receives grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

mediabiasfactcheck.com...

Because usually you can see the agenda based on the source of funding.

a reply to: Chalcedony

That is a really good catch!

Nothing to see here folks, please move along!

I try an read/listen to information from a variety of news sources that are moderately biased across the political spectrum and than try to ascertain the direction of the truth based on the bits of information that are common across all the sources.

And because moderately biased news sources aren't always timely with the more controversial or low information topics I come here for the heads up.

a reply to: Chalcedony

Because usually you can see the agenda based on the source of funding.

copy that and....

A basic knowledge of NLP can help spot the lies when dealing on a personal level.

a reply to: opethPA

I shoot the messenger...

Meaning: if the information is not valid, that source / messenger is not anymore trusted. If the source repeats or acts with agenda or objective, then that source is not used anymore.

a reply to: opethPA

Whatever the oldest most objective source is, then as many other sources as I can find. I compare the various sources of information, look at the differences in the wordings of the claim, look for any inconsistencies, direct objective facts that contradict the claims that kind of stuff.

Then, depending on what I can actually find, I have a range of categories I subconciously store facts under. Everything from possibly true, to complete bull#. Nothing is 100% true. Whoever tries to tell you this doesn't understand the way the world works.

We can prove things aren't false, but that does not mean it's true ans we should always be trying to falsify our beliefs.

Try to prove yourself wrong constantly, the more you do, the more accurate your knowledge about everything will be. Believing you or anyone else knows the absolute truth is foolish. Nobody does, the most we can ever know is how not wrong something is.

One of the biggest problems is people form an opinion and then build a wall around it with confirmation bias, so it doesn't really matter what site they go to as they are looking for only one type of answer that supports their opinion. You can't debate this as there is nothing you can say or show that will change their minds.

Take the vaccine, sure there are people who do not want it, don't trust it etc and that is fine. But when they throw in all kinds of false information to support their beliefs then who are they trying to convince me/us or them? I could say mRNA is not a drug but a nature process within the cell, and it is gone within a day with the protein gone within a few more, so there is no long term effects on your body like with using a drug you take a long time, and they would say, but what about long term side effects like in 5 years...lol This suggests no real investigation on their own outside of maybe something to support their biases.

Another problem is people suggest a link is the ends be all defecto proof they are right. I say you are wrong and you post a link and drop the mic and walk away as in finding even one thing that agrees with you makes you right. You also have the otherside where a person just says post proof... That is all and good, but if you haven't even spent 20 seconds looking yourself why should I do it too, it's not like just because you replied means I need to provide crap or even respond to you. Now if you say, hey I found this and it suggests you are wrong then at least I am aware you gave it a 20 second effort. I know at times I have said well if you Google it you get 1000s of hits saying I'm right...just Google XYZ and see, and people will say it isn't on me to prove anything....lol.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you post something as proof and you don't back it up with some kind of evidence it's lazy on your part.

I'll admit I do it myself and I'm working on that.

You're attitude on this is one of my pet peeves. Post some fact but don't back it up with references and then the response is, "look it up yourself!" Why am I in charge of validating your claim? That's your job, know your role in a conversation.

originally posted by: opethPA
I have always used factcheck.org as a reliable, non-partisan way to give me a foundation to work on with topics: www.factcheck.org...
...
Linked in the above is a living wiki table that tries to compile what are general considered to be hoax or fake news sites: en.wikipedia.org...

Lol well personally I wouldn't rely on either of those websites if you really want to get to the core truth on a politically divisive issue. Both those websites are quite unreliable in terms of their bias, the self-appointed experts that write the articles usually try to spin them in a certain direction. It's not the blatant lies that annoy me the most, it's all the subtle little lies which are easy to overlook.

Personally I would start with websites like factcheck and CNN just to get an idea of what the mainstream narrative is, then I would look for flaws in that argument, and there are almost always flaws or subtle lies in their narrative. The best way to refute their narrative is to find raw data to directly disprove their argument, which I often do because data is in such abundance these days, especially with respect to Covid-19.

But it has to be data from a respectable source, or directly from a government department if possible. I like to present arguments in such a way that they are extremely difficult to disprove because I'm using the very same sources that the people trying to debunk my arguments are using. Even though I trust Fox News a bit more than CNN I almost never use Fox as a source because the source will become the focus.

In my experience the only real way to reach the truth is to apply your own critical thinking skills to question everything you hear and read, it's a skill you have to train over time as you learn to separate lies from the truth. Even the cold hard data is sometimes manipulated and skewed to present a certain argument, the truth is becoming ever more elusive due to propaganda and it concerns me greatly.

originally posted by: litterbaux

You're attitude on this is one of my pet peeves. Post some fact but don't back it up with references and then the response is, "look it up yourself!" Why am I in charge of validating your claim? That's your job, know your role in a conversation.

I will post 99% of the time, but I'm talking more along the extreme line as in if your replay to my post is to highlight 5 words of a 3 paragraph post and all you say is "post your source" then you are really not adding anything or really replying to my post. If I do not post a source it is mainly because if I Google 3 words 10,000 sources come up that align with what I'm suggesting , so that really tells me the person didn't put an ounce of effort into it.

If you reply to my post with like 3 words there is no rule that for any reason I need to prove something to you. It isn't some kind of challenge I need to address. It's a discussion that goes both way.