Unspun+Chapter+8+Precis+and+Powerpoint+8

Maria Helgeson and Elizabeth Ray 2-9-09 AP Lang 2:00 Mrs. Walker The most informative source can prove wrong; it’s not a good idea to only use one source for information. We should question and check with other sources what we hear in the world around us. It’s not hard to learn how to do this, but it takes a little bit of time. Developing this as a habit can keep up from embarrassing ourselves. Once creationists had thought they had found an advocate in the attorney Clarence Darrow thanks to a quote the //Yale Law Journal// attributed to him. Over and over again this supposed quote was attributed to him, but there’s no proof that he every said it. Darrow defended John Scopes when he was charged with breaking Tennessee law by teaching Darwinism. According to the article Darrow said that it was, “bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins.” It is very unlikely that he ever really said these words. Eventually a UCLA student named Tom McIver tried to track down the original origin of the quotation and eventually the trail went cold. The transcript of the trails does show that Darrow used the word “bigotry” a lot, but not in a way that creationists would like. After McIver’s article, creationists no longer use the quote. McIver’s opinion was that so many believed that this quote was actually spoken by Darrow because it’s what they wanted to believe. When sources even as prestigious at the //Yale Law Journal// can get facts wrong, it’s worthwhile to cross check your information. Being totally certain about something is almost impossible. We aren’t working with math or logic or, on the flip side, faith which generally cannot be proved at all. We should carefully examine anything that claims to be “never” or “always” so. The laws of science even are not considered concrete, it would only take one counterexample to prove them wrong. We desire absolute certainty pretty much because living with uncertainty is uncomfortable. It also gets in the way of our daily decision making. Despite this, it is often most helpful to be open-minded about the options around us. Very rarely can we attain perfect knowledge. Looking into both sides of a matter is often the best strategy for getting the amount of proof we need to decide something. We can never be completely certain, but we can be close enough to make good decisions. Our standard for “beyond a reasonable doubt” is quite high because we need to be as certain as we can be before we, say, convict someone of a felony. The higher the importance the more certain we need to be. We must pick an appropriate level for everything in our lives. There are some things in life that everyone agrees on no matter who you are. Some statistics are non-negotiable. Despite this fact, consensus doesn’t always mean it’s true. Occasionally you should listen to the person who is standing alone. But we should start with what authorities accept as a good indicator of whether or not something is genuine. Miscommunication happens, and if we suspect that something is false, we should go back to the original, primary sources. In our court system, “hearsay” is generally not accepted as sound evidence. Anonymous sources are even worse as its secondhand evidence given to reporters. It is often a good idea to read with a discerning mind to see if all the facts agree with each other. Though you could not possibly track every fact back to the original source, original sources are always more reliable than a secondary source. When we are given information about increases, decreases, or numbers in general, it is important to know what is being counted and what is being left out. Often, sources make use of “numerical flimflams” - they manipulate numbers to get results which serve their interests. We should always be aware of who is providing information. People tend to present the facts in a way that will be advantageous to them. Sometimes information put forward by a biased person or group can be deceptive – it might tell only the facts or numbers that cast it in a good light. Often, the interests of private sources of information are in conflict with the public interest. It is in the best interests of the public to take the source into account when considering information. Some sources can be given more credibility than others. If a source presents information in conflict with its interests, it is not necessarily false – but it might be. Even if information is given by an eyewitness, it is not necessarily true. People often misunderstand or misremember their own experiences. Research has shown that one person among a group of people will often agree with the statements of the majority, even when they are clearly untrue. It is also true that after some time has passed, a person’s memory of an event can be quite different from what really happened – even when the person is absolutely certain that they know the facts. For this reason, even eyewitness testimony is not always reliable. It is impossible to be sure that a source is reliable, but more credibility can be given to information that several sources agree upon. Facts that many sources have agreed upon are less likely to have been influenced by a bias or a subjective interpretation. There are a few rules to follow when considering the credibility of information. Testimony given in court is more likely to be true than a comment given out of court, because lying under oath is a criminal offense. It is important to be aware of where the interests of a source of information lie, and whether the information it is giving is likely to hurt or help it. Statements which go against the source’s self-interest are not likely to be false. The history and reputation of a source should affect the weight we give its information. A good informant should state where and how it came by its facts. When considering numbers, it is an advantage to know how precise an estimate is. Cynics assume that they are not being told the truth. Skeptics look for evidence that they are being told the truth. It is smart to be skeptical, but not cynical. Cynics can be fooled just as easily as blind followers, because they reject facts without considering evidence. Those who want to know the facts should always be looking for good evidence.
 * Rule #1: You Can’t Be Completely Certain**
 * Rule #2: You Can Be Certain Enough**
 * Rule #3: Look for General Agreement Among Experts**
 * Rule #4: Check Primary Sources**
 * Rule #5: Know What Counts**
 * Rule #6: Know Who’s Talking**
 * Rule #7: Seeing Shouldn’t Necessarily Be Believing**
 * Rule #8: Cross-check Everything That Matters**
 * Final Rule: Be Skeptical, but Not Cynical**