Chapter 5 Sources - PHI
danela8
chapter_5_-_sources.docxCredibility
When claims are presented to you, evaluate them by asking two key questions:
1. How credible is the claim itself?
2. How credible is the source of the claim?
First, let’s consider the credibility of the claim itself. When you’re thinking critically, you’re evaluating every claim against what you already know to see if it seems plausible or implausible. Consider the following claims:
I can run three miles in 30 minutes.
I can teleport up to 300 meters away.
Does one seem more believable than the other? That’s what we mean by considering the credibility of the claim. In fact, the literal meaning of “incredible” is “unbelievable” or “impossible.”
You’re constantly evaluating claims against things you already know. And the more you know about a topic, the better you can judge a claim’s credibility. For example, imagine that your car has developed an odd rattling noise. A mechanic tells you that it’s likely the heat shield protecting your catalytic converter. If you don’t know exactly what the catalytic converter is or where to find it under the hood, you might run this diagnosis by a trusted friend who has more experience working on cars to see if it sounds credible.
Whenever you’re evaluating a claim, keep an eye out for the following:
· Whether evidence is offered to support the claim
· Whether there are any obvious inaccuracies
· Whether the claim is an observation or an inferred conclusion
Every day, according to the Department of Transportation, 1.73 million people travel on domestic flights in the United States. And every day, airlines dispense more than 10 million plastic cups to these passengers—cups that go straight into our landfills.
Does this sound credible? There are three claims here. First, do you find the Department of Transportation credible? If you do a quick search, you’ll find that the website of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics does in fact provide this exact information. Now, based on your personal experience with air travel, does it seem likely that each passenger uses about five cups when they fly? Finally, do all airlines throw away these cups or do some of them have recycling programs? These are the kinds of questions to ask when sizing up the credibility of a claim.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
A credible claim has which of the following characteristics?
· It uses inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion.
· It appears to be plausibly true.
· It contains premises and a conclusion.
· It is unexpected and memorable.
Multiple Choice Question
Marcus claims that if you have diabetes, you should avoid starchy foods like bread and potatoes. Which of the following situations would MOST likely make you question the credibility of his claim?
· Several of your family members have diabetes and were told by their doctors that starch-heavy foods can be incorporated into a healthy diabetic diet.
· You remember seeing a news report on television that highlighted several studies showing a link between diabetes and the consumption of starchy foods.
· Marcus is a diabetic himself and had a number of diabetes-related health problems when he ate too many starchy foods.
· Marcus cites a number of peer-reviewed sources to back up his claim.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Your friend tells you that neutron stars have an escape velocity of twice the speed of light. How would you go about determining whether or not her claim is credible?
Practice: Credibility
How Much Do We Waste?
Forty percent of the food we produce in this country never gets eaten.
Your junk mail alone adds 39 pounds of garbage to the landfill every year.
Somewhere between 500 billion and one trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide each year.
Shocking statistics can be an impressive way to get people’s attention and motivate them into action on behalf of a good cause. But as with any claim, it’s worth investigating these stated facts rather than taking them at face value. In the following activity, you will look at several different websites to explore the credibility of claims about waste.
Use the embedded links to answer the questions below.
The first step to evaluating credibility is to ask yourself whether or not the claim seems believable at first glance.
Poll Question
Suppose you hear someone say that people in the United States throw away 250 million tons of garbage each year. Off the top of your head, how credible does this claim seem?
Top of Form
· Very credible
· Credible
· Not sure
· Not very credible
· Not credible at all
Bottom of Form
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Sometimes numerical claims are easier to evaluate when you do the math and break down exactly what the claim is saying.
Multiple Choice Question
According to the U.S. Census, there were approximately 309 million people in the United States in 2010. If the statistic about Americans throwing away 250 million tons of garbage per year is true, roughly how much trash would each person be throwing away each year, on average?
· a little less than ten tons per person
· a little less than one hundred tons per person
· a little less than half of a ton per person
· a little less than one ton per person
When you’re investigating a claim about which you have very little background information, websites like Wikipedia can often serve as good starting points to find out more information.
Multiple Choice Question
Look at the Wikipedia entry on Landfills in the United States. According to this page, how much trash did Americans produce in 2010?
· about 250 tons of trash
· about 250 million tons of trash
· about 350 million tons of trash
· about 150 tons of trash
Because websites like Wikipedia rely on user-written and user-edited content, to investigate further, you want to find out where Wikipedia got this information to better determine if it’s accurate.
Multiple Choice Question
The footnote accompanying that particular statistic goes to the Landfills page of the EPA’s website. What does this webpage say about how much trash Americans generate per year?
· It does not provide any statistics about how much trash Americans generate each year.
· It says that Americans generate 100 million tons of trash each year.
· It says that Americans generate 250 tons of trash each year.
· It says that Americans generate 258 million tons of trash each year.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Knowing what you know now, do you think this claim is credible? If not, what other information would you need before you’d accept it as definite fact?
To recap, here is a list of basic steps to follow when investigating a claim:
1. Ask yourself if the claim sounds credible off the top of your head.
2. Think about what the claim is actually stating, doing the math if necessary.
3. Look up the claim on the Internet to see where it came from.
4. Once you find the claim, check if the website references a source.
5. If the website does provide references, investigate those websites for credibility.
Use the steps above to investigate the following claim.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
As you’re browsing the web, you come across this site , which claims that Americans throw away 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour. Go through the first three steps from above. Using just that information, explain why you believe (or don’t believe) this claim.
Experts
As we said previously, when claims are presented to you, you should evaluate them with two questions:
1. How credible is the claim itself?
2. How credible is the source of the claim?
Now let’s take up the challenge of evaluating a source. This process also relies on two essential questions:
1. Is the source likely to have accurate information and authentic knowledge?
2. Is there reason to think that the source might be intentionally misleading?
Expertise
An expert is someone who knows more than most people about a specific subject. We can’t be knowledgeable about everything, so we look to experts for guidance. Expert opinion doesn’t guarantee truth, but it is usually a reliable guide to it. You must have good reasons to be skeptical of a claim held by experts in the field.
If you’re having trouble deciding if someone is truly an expert, here are some things to look for:
· Education from reputable institutions or in relevant programs
· Experience—the more in the field, the better
· Professional accomplishments that are directly relevant
· Reputation among peers
Limits of Expertise
Expertise adds credibility, but it only goes so far. As a critical thinker, you’ll want to keep an eye out for the ways that the credibility of experts is damaged.
Expertise loses credibility when the expert
· makes a claim outside their area of expertise (remember the fallacy of unqualified authority);
· makes simple factual errors or mistakes in logic or reasoning;
· seems to be speaking from an emotional orientation;
· has a clear conflict of interests (e.g., being paid to present a specific view);
· doesn't provide sufficient support for tenuous claims; or
· holds a view in direct opposition to most other experts in the same subject area.
Peer Review
If a medical doctor does research and uncovers, say, a new method of treating cystic fibrosis, the finding isn’t considered valid until it has been reviewed by other doctors specializing in this same field. This is called peer review, and it’s used in numerous disciplines.
When reviewing a peer’s work, scholars are typically checking to see that the author knows what he or she is talking about, has taken into account previous work in the field, and has added something new to the conversation about the topic.
Professional communities often publish journals that include only peer-reviewed articles as the official means of “certifying” new information as credible. This is most common with scientific research, academic scholarship, and professional journals. A peer-reviewed journal is typically your best source for the most credible information in such fields.
News
For more general information, such as today’s news, our most credible sources are the major publishers and broadcasters like the New York Times, the BBC, and National Public Radio. These organizations are closely watched by competitors, critics, and colleagues, and the appearance of any false information is considered scandalous.
When the credibility of these sources is called into question, it is typically on the basis of the following errors:
· Skewed perspective (i.e., overemphasizing particular issues or viewpoints)
· Missing information
· Unprofessional reporters
· The profit motive (i.e., advertisers influencing content)
It’s appropriate to be wary of what you see on the news if something in the report contradicts what you already know with a reasonable degree of certainty or if support for a claim isn’t provided. Being human, reporters can
· make mistakes;
· let personal opinions govern how they research, interpret, and tell a story; or
· use the available information to make inferences that aren’t justified.
Different news outlets will cover stories in varying depths. For example, after an eight-hour congressional hearing, NPR will typically run a five-minute story, while CNN will cover the same event in 30 seconds. If you find a news story that seems puzzling to you, the confusion can often be cleared up simply by finding a source offering deeper coverage.
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Arlene is a neurologist and claims that if you have less sleep one night, you’re likely to have more vivid and numerous dreams the following night. You might be inclined to question Arlene’s expertise on the subject if you found out which of the following things?
· The vast majority of neurologists believe that less sleep yields less dreaming the following night.
· Arlene has a PhD and has been certified by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine.
· Arlene has been working at a sleep research center for the last 12 years.
· Arlene provides support for her claim and cites other well-respected experts in the field.
Multiple Choice Question
If an article has been peer-reviewed, you can count on which of the following?
· It probably has a strong bias.
· It is less credible than mainstream news outlets.
· Other experts in the field have assessed it for quality control.
· The facts contained within it are guaranteed to be accurate.
Practice: Experts
Hasty Reporting, Regrettable Mistake
As previously noted, the largest news publishers and broadcasters are usually very credible. But even giants like NPR are not infallible. In the following article, Alicia C. Shepherd describes the events leading to a crucial reporting error during the coverage of the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the remorse that members of the news organization felt afterwards.
Read the article below, and then answer the following questions.
NPR’s Giffords Mistake: Re-Learning the Lesson of Checking Sources
Multiple Choice Question
What mistake did NPR make when reporting the Giffords story?
· They reported that the gunman had come up to Giffords’s desk and started shooting people, but he actually used a sniper rifle from a distance.
· They reported that Giffords had been killed, but she was actually still alive and in the hospital.
· They reported that Giffords had been shot, but only the people around her had actually been shot.
· They reported that the shooting had taken place in a shopping center, but it actually took place at a football stadium.
Short Answer Question
For what two reasons was this mistake especially serious?
In this instance, NPR’s blunder was a result of which of the following mistakes?
· NPR had only one source for the report instead of at least two.
· NPR tried to immediately correct the mistake via email.
· Senior editors were consulted before going on air.
· NPR did not use a source with accurate, firsthand information.
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
The article mentions that other news sources, including CNN, Fox News, and the New York Times, repeated NPR’s false story. To what extent do you think these other news organizations are accountable for the mistake?
Twitter plays a role in the story of this reporting error. How do you think the rise of social media has impacted source credibility? On the whole, do you think social media outlets have helped to challenge questionable claims and hold the mainstream media accountable, or do they tend to lower the quality of information by spreading rumors and misinformation faster? Explain.Bottom of Form
Which of the following BEST describes the writer’s evaluation of the situation?
· NPR got all the heat for reporting a mistake, but really their sources should be blamed.
· NPR has lost all credibility and should never be trusted again.
· The scandal was overblown and it wasn’t that big of a deal that NPR made one small mistake.
· NPR made a terrible, harmful mistake; however, they should be commended for their willingness to admit fault.
Everyone Else
Beyond formal scholarship and major news organizations, there is an ocean of sources that provide information and, in some cases, misinformation. In the digital age, literally anyone can make a claim or offer their opinion on something you’re interested in.
Which earbuds should I buy?
How big should a chicken coop be?
What is business casual dress?
The most common ways to answer such questions are to ask friends, seek out people who might know, or look at the top hits on Google. But how can you tell which sources are most credible?
Information available on the Internet ranges from personal webpages expressing the opinion of one person unchecked by anyone else to digital outlets of the credible journal articles, experts, and major news organizations we discussed earlier.
When reading (or watching) anything on the web, the questions you ask should be the same as those that apply in any other context:
· Who is speaking or writing?
· What is the intended audience?
· Where are they speaking or writing?
· Who has invested the time and/or money to disseminate this?
The answers to these questions help you determine the perspective of a particular website, page, project, or author. Knowing the perspective helps you evaluate the claims being made.
Most information is put out there for a reason, so you can’t escape the fact that everyone offering information is doing so with some kind of bias or agenda. Of course, just because they have a perspective doesn’t necessarily mean the information is inaccurate. But if you can identify the perspective, you can find sources with competing perspectives to round out the picture. For example, in an election between two candidates, you’ll learn a lot more by looking at both candidates’websites than by looking at just one and assuming it tells you all you need to know.
It’s also important to be wary of user-written and user-edited information resources such as Wikipedia, About.com, or Yahoo Answers. While these sites often come up early on in search engine results, there is no guarantee that their content is authored by individuals with genuine expertise on the subject. These sites can provide fast information for low-stakes questions (like finding out what films a familiar-looking TV guest star appeared in) but you should cross-reference the information with additional resources for any matter of importance.
The first step in evaluating Internet resources is to start with the URL or web address of the page you’re looking at. The URL will offer clues about the website’s type and purpose.
.com = commercial site
Some commercial sites are promoting their own business, like Disney.com. These are perhaps best understood as advertisements. This doesn’t mean the information they present is false, but it’s important to understand the perspective of the site.
Other commercial sites belong to businesses that let people post whatever they want, such as YouTube.com. These sites rarely play any role in vouching for the validity of the content on their site.
.org = nonprofit site
Most .org sites are hosted by nonprofit organizations, and there are few nonprofit organizations without some sort of perspective. So you’ll find different information about gun control at a site like NRA.org, which is set up to advocate for the rights of gun owners, than you will at a site like BradyCampaign.org, which is set up to advocate for tougher controls on gun ownership.
.gov = government site
Government sites are those hosted by the government. How credible you find them may depend on how much you trust government in general, but most government agencies have an interest in accurate data themselves and are not motivated to spread misinformation or deception.
.edu = educational or academic site
Educational sites belong to an accredited university and typically provide information about that particular school. Some of these websites also host pages that offer information about particular academic topics or research projects of interest to faculty at the school.
So it’s up to you, as a critical thinker, to ask a few questions:
· What’s the site’s reputation? If you’re not sure, you can search to see if the site is ever referenced by other sites you already find credible.
· Is the site well-produced and free of sloppy writing, spelling errors, and editorial mistakes?
· Does the author or speaker offer any credentials lending credibility to their claims?
· Could the information be outdated? For example, a 2004 article reviewing the best earbuds on the market is most likely no longer accurate.
· What person or organization created, sponsors, or vouches for the credibility of the information on this website or page? And if they have a strong perspective from one side of a controversial issue, what other sources could help round out the picture?
Answer the following questions about the material above.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following is the best approach to seeking information on the Internet?
· If you can tell a website has a bias, assume that its content isn’t true.
· Take advantage of the information the Internet has to offer, but approach everything you read with a critical eye.
· Don’t trust any information from online sources, because anybody can say anything on the Internet.
· Trust everything you read on websites with URLs that end in .edu, .gov, and .org, and don’t trust what you read on websites with URLs that end in .com.
Multiple Choice Question
Which of the following situations would be the MOST appropriate use of a user-written reference source like Wikipedia?
· learning what you need to know about Andrew Jackson so you can write a research paper evaluating his presidency
· looking up symptoms of a medical condition to determine if you have a particular disease
· obtaining unbiased reporting of a current event as it’s happening
· gathering some background information on what mycology is all about before diving into reading an academic article about the topic
Multiple Choice Question
Based on its URL alone, you could safely assume that the website located at http://www.cdkc.edu/ is which of the following?
· an academic institution’s website
· a nonprofit organization’s website
· a government website
· a commercial webpage
Practice: Everyone Else
Fun in the Sun
One of the most common pieces of wisdom is that exposure to UV rays from the sun can lead to skin cancer—and therefore, wearing sunscreen and limiting time in the sun are two of the best safeguards against it. However, in the abundance of information on the web, you will occasionally find divergent opinions. When making decisions about your health, it’s important to critically evaluate your sources. This lesson will have you evaluate the credibility of websites making claims about the benefits and dangers of sunscreen use.
While there are many aspects to evaluating websites for credibility, this activity will focus on a few simple steps:
1. Read the article and identify the claims it is making.
2. Look for what support, if any, is given for the claims.
3. Identify the author and what his or her credentials are.
4. Identify the organization behind the webpage and what their purpose is.
Read the article at the link below, and then answer the following questions.
Sunscreen May Not Be Your Friend
Short Answer Question
What basic argument regarding sunscreen does this author make?
Multiple Choice Question
Check out the references the author provides and the sources he cites in defense of his argument. Which of the following is TRUE of the author’s use of references and citations in this article?
· The author includes several quotations from medical doctors that support his claims.
· The author makes several references in the body of the article to experts who back up his claims.
· The author uses footnotes to cite many articles that back up his claims.
· The author includes only one citation to an article whose link does not work.
Multiple Choice Question
According to the About page, who is the author, and what credentials does he have?
· He is a biologist specializing in evolutionary studies.
· He is a former athlete and was an undergraduate biology major in college.
· He is a board-certified dermatologist with many years of medical practice.
· He is a licensed chiropractor with degrees in fitness, health, and nutrition.
Short Answer Question
Use the website’s Home page and describe what the purpose of the website appears to be.
Take Two
Now that you’ve explored the credibility of one website, apply those same practices to another article about sunscreen use.
Read the article below and then answer the following questions.
Sunscreens: Safe and Effective
Short Answer Question
What basic argument regarding sunscreen do these authors make?
Multiple Choice Question
In this article, which of the following is TRUE of the authors’ use of footnotes and citations?
· The authors do not include any citations for the evidence presented in the article.
· The authors do not make any scientific claims that would require footnotes or citations.
· The authors use over 30 footnotes to back their claims, many of which point to peer-reviewed studies.
· The authors cite one main article where they got their information.
Multiple Choice Question
Who are the authors, and what credentials do they have?
· They are both medical doctors and photobiologists who study the interaction of ultraviolet (UV) radiation and the skin.
· They are manufacturers of sunscreen who have spent years reviewing different brands.
· They are researchers affiliated with and funded by the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Dietary Supplements.
· They are investigative journalists who specialize in exposing misleading advice from pharmaceutical companies.
Short Answer Question
Use the website’s About Us page and describe what the purpose of the website appears to be.
Multiple Choice Question
Of the two websites, which is a more credible source?
· The article from the Skin Cancer Foundation is a more credible source, because it is longer and goes into more detail about the issues.
· The article from the Skin Cancer Foundation is a more credible source, because it is written by qualified experts and provides citations from other credible sources.
· The article from Mark’s Daily Apple is more credible, because it questions common wisdom and challenges claims made by the FDA.
· The article from Mark’s Daily Apple is a more credible source, because the author uses his personal experience to back up his claims.
Your Turn
Read and evaluate the website at the link below, and then answer the following question.
Food Renegade: Should You Use Sunscreen
· Response Board Question
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
·
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
