Originally posted by Jezus
The real problem is "Television and The Information Crisis". The internet is the solution because people have learned to be skeptical of information instead of just believing everything that claims to be "news".

Im not seeking a comparison to something even worse (TV). With TV you are a passive consumer, here you are an active co-creator.

Always seek comparison to the ideal.

In my experience sorting through information on the internet, and in other forms, it is my opinion that the key to finding the truth is to

read a lot of material, material from different sources, material from sources who disagree with each other, the extreme and everything in between, but one has to really read a lot of it.

And to be fearless about what may or may not be the truth. One must also have faith in ones own judgment and faith in the ability of logic to solve the riddle that is reality. And it also helps if one stays open minded.

I know many people who pride themselves on their analytical, logical self image. However they only read about one non-fiction book a year, and one or two highly biased publications the rest of the year. The result is that their strong opinions sway wildly and that they become a temporary spokesperson for whatever author they just read. One of them told me once to "Be careful what you read." lol To which I replied, "I'll read it all."

I can remember trying to do research before the internet. I was limited to whatever books my local library happened to have, and whatever books my local bookstore carried that I could afford. Not to mention, whatever information happened to be published. *shivers*

I'll take my chances with the internet. I don't want to be protected from myself. Have courage and try to solve the puzzle of reality

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The Internet has been of great benefit to almost anyone. This is why its possible drawbacks are overlooked. One of the disadvantages of the Internet is that it is more difficult to discern between information, entertainment, advertisement and propaganda. In many cases, blurring the lines between fact and fiction, truth and lie, reality and irreality is actively sought.

Someone writes an article and posts it to a Blog, a Website or a Discussion-Board.

Is the article secretly being sponsored by a viral-marketing-campaign?
Is the article written with the hidden purpose of political spin?
Is it written to entertain and generate site-clicks?
Is it written to demonize or idolize something or someone?

Or is it actually written to inform tp the best of ones knowledge and truth-as-one-understands-it and for the educational benefit of mankind? There is no way of knowing for sure.

With the age of Internet, the dissemination of Information has become more democratic. But has it become more true? Does it pose a problem that every uneducated idiot with a Blog is now a publisher for Millions and that false information can spread at the speed of light? Is anything being done in school so that children learn about the responsible and fair use of the Internet?

How do you tell between Entertainment, Infotainment, Information, Propaganda?

Some argue that Blogs and News-Sites should not be anonymous. That if people had to post their real name along with the information they post, the information would be more responsible and truthful. Others argue that it should always be anonymous because then posting is more courageous and privacy is protected. I can see merit in both sides. What do you think?


[edit on 10-1-2010 by Skyfloating]

Intelligence organizations have long had the problem of information over load. It's very easy to get so much data, you might miss something very important. While one using the internet can not always discriminate between what is fact and what is garbage, not restricting your self to one media source or type is a very good start. We all have a natural habit to view media sources that validate our world view. For example my Dad gets all his news from Fox News. Not wise. I don't need a media source to validate my ego, or make me feel "smart". Thats dangerous. I watch Fox too, but thats not the only source I read, view, or listen to.

As for the internet there is no question more people have the ability to be heard. Your going to get stuff that is thought provoking, sometimes brilliant. And your going to get stuff from bigots, people "really pissed off at you, me and life". And those who should be in a padded cell. As for people who have to post their names on blogs, are you serious? There are to many very dangerous people out there. People should be able to post what they want, including the nuts, with out reasonable fear of retrabution.

Last, every one, I mean EVERYONE has an agenda. We can very honestly try to be as impartial as we can, but were not automatons. Each of us has a point of view. It's just human nature. To determine if there really is a shadow motive, many media groups brodcast with a certain political "flavor". (Like Fox, NBC,BBC, of course Rush Limbaugh). Watching a source for a while will give you an idea what that "flavour" is. Are they really "fair and ballanced", or do you sense an agenda? Your instincts can go a long way in covering your backside when it comes to not being snowed.

Several web sites do provide very good information a vast majority of the time. You can subscribe to get all of it, or get a great deal free. Later, I will provide links to several others:
1: Stratfor.com- Intelligence (national security), Military, Corporate Security. (very good site)
2: Corporate Security.com- (use google, its quicker) Very broad based site, heavy on corporate/military contracts. Often very usefull intelligence.
3: New Scientist.com- Very good general science site, but you have to subscribe to get some articles, but you do get a lot free.
4: Physorg..com- So far this is the best general science as well as science and society site I've seen. VERY good, and you get a lot for free.

Originally posted by masqua
Has it ever been any different, even with the printed word?

I love books... so much it's almost erotic. The feel, the smell, the sound of quality paper, the weight in my hands. It's tactile and I have literally hundreds of titles at hand and I'd bet a thousand I've given away. I'm talking hardcovers, not paperbacks, because they're only good for the recycle bin.

umm it kinda depends, que no? couple months ago i bought a couple of books. one is a compilation of horror stories and the other is a manual on deductive reasoning and geometry. the first book is a beautiful hardcover. new. the second is a cheap used paperback. i didnt even get halfway through the first book because almost every story uses the same amateurish cheesy plot and is unbelievably predictable after you`re done reading the first page of almost any story. the second is so simple yet elegant in its explanations of geometry. actually you really are able to prove whatever theorem after reading it. guess which one is a tosser.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Point 1: How reliable is the source of the claim?
Point 2: Does the source make similar claims?
Point 3: Have the claims been verified by anybody else?
Point 4: Does this fit with the way the world works?
point 5: has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
Point 6: Where does the preponderance point?
Point 7: Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
Point 8: Is the Claimant using positive evidence?
Point 9: Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the Old theory?
Point 10:Are personal beliefs driving this claim?

No offense to you personally but the only question out of these that should be relevant is whether or not the information holds up to the scientific method, which in most cases can't even be determined unless you can find other studies already done.

The rest are just logical fallacies. Ie, "Does this fit with the way the world works?" That assumes someone's preconceptions about how something is automatically take precedent over any novel information coming in. Which, best case scenario, just slows you down from learning new information, and, worst case scenario, results in you shutting out completely valid information just because you have not yet accommodated for its possibility in your personal schema.

The one and only "baloney detection kit" you ever need is logic itself, and at least half the points posted above aren't strictly logical at all but call repeatedly upon one's own pre-conceptions.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The one and only "baloney detection kit" you ever need is logic itself

I think you will probably need more than logic itself, as logic is merely a form or tool used to draw conclusions based on any given set of premises. As long as the logical form is correct, a logical argument can still be valid and contain an untrue premise. For instance the syllogism 'All men are immortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal' is a logically valid argument but is an unsound argument because it contains the untrue premise that 'all men are immortal' thus leading to the untrue conclusion that Socrates is immortal.

I find the most difficult part of the quest for truth is determining the veracity of premises. And as is the question in this thread about the truth content on the internet, the most difficult challenge in the search for the truth is not facing other users using poor logic but rather the veracity of the sorts of premises that one comes across on the internet.

The nice thing about logical form is one is able to determine it's validity while sitting in one's armchair. Unfortunately with premises, while sometimes one can armchair analyze the veracity of a premise, frequently the subject of a premise exists at great distances from ones armchair, and baring remote viewing or other direct empirical connections to the subject in question, analyzing the truth content of a premise can be rather difficult.

Here are some premises I've come across on the internet that I'd sure like to know if they are true or false.
1. There is a network of underground tunnels connecting all parts of the world.
2. An outer space alien spacecraft crash landed in Roswell New Mexico.
3. A large man made chamber hall exists somewhere in the Grand Canyon.
4. Advanced human civilizations existed on earth millions of years ago.
5. Something big will happen in the year 2012
6. Royal Raymond Rife discovered a cure for cancer that was suppressed.
7. Jets are spraying chemicals in the form of chemtrails.

I could go on with more but I think I'll need more than logic to determine the veracity of the above premises.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
How do you tell between Entertainment, Infotainment, Information, Propaganda?

In the more obvious the platform being used by the author or presenters e.t.c
I have no exact answer for the more dangerous subtle forms of propaganda and genuine dis info . A gut feeling , logical thought process and careful observation would all form a part of the answer at differnt times . I think that are a lot of uncomfortable topics such the speed at which Africa was decolonized are mistaken for propaganda . The fusion of opinions with so called facts happens on ATS all the time , people claim speculative conspiracy theory's as fact and cry foul when people point out otherwise .

Some argue that Blogs and News-Sites should not be anonymous. That if people had to post their real name along with the information they post, the information would be more responsible and truthful. Others argue that it should always be anonymous because then posting is more courageous and privacy is protected. I can see merit in both sides. What do you think?

Myself I have found the ideal balance both on my blog and on the now defunct AP Show . By using my real first name without giving out such details as my home address I am not hiding behind a anonymous user name while maintaining my privacy . Some people who don't go as far as revealing there first name aren't always the cowards who hide behind anonymous user names and make all sorts of claims but a lot of them are .

Originally posted by QtheQ
I think you will probably need more than logic itself, as logic is merely a form or tool used to draw conclusions based on any given set of premises. As long as the logical form is correct, a logical argument can still be valid and contain an untrue premise. For instance the syllogism 'All men are immortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is immortal' is a logically valid argument but is an unsound argument because it contains the untrue premise that 'all men are immortal' thus leading to the untrue conclusion that Socrates is immortal.

My question is, can it be logically demonstrated that all men are not in fact immortal?

If you can't come to such a conclusion logically, imo you cannot really come to any conclusion at all. And whenever I can't come to a conclusion, I make it a habit of entertaining several possibilities at once since they have not been ruled out. It's not difficult to do, and I apply logic to every aspect and step along the way.

thats true it's so hard to find out the true information because there is so much false stuff out there covering it up, but we must keep looking and searching until we are awake

This makes me feel so hypocritical, I want to enjoy the entertainment values and yet dont want my children to succumb to the non sense of it all, nor my grandparents to buy into the propaganda...