Information Literacy and Online Debating

INTRODUCTION

This is an attempt to tackle the problem of ignorance in our society. From flat-earth, anti-vaxxers, and others, I’m hoping this contains information to assist those in finding truth. These references below are for you to help yourself with your own reasoning. Assume you are wrong, and go about using this information to help you understand the truth. Only then can you start using this information in debates with others.

Please know, as a source, I’m biased. I tried to pick balanced information for everyone and labeled clearly the parts where I thought I was biased. The bias will mainly show up in my examples of various things, not necessarily the information itself.

The information is thorough, but just a start. Do your own research. Feel free to jump around as well and read at your own pace.

Below was quoted on a TV network famous for conspiracy theories and it was the quote that got me out of the darkness: “ Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson

___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

NOTES FOR DOING DEBATES

The idea behind this article is to lay down some foundation as to principles for debating. This isn’t a full list, but a good starting point.

1. Principle of Charity:
   
   1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
      
   2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
      
   3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
      
   4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
      
      Read more: https://effectiviology.com/principle-of-charity/
      
2. Bad Faith Arguing
   
   1. also “trolling”
      
   2. The hallmark of a bad-faith argument is that it disguises the core point of a debate rather than addressing issues, beliefs, and values head-on.
      
   3. Bad faith as I have used it on this sub means someone who is invested in winning an argument above all else. They are not approaching the conversation in a way which is fair to the point of view they are arguing against. (from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AgainstGamerGate/comments/2vsqrc/so_lets_try_this_again_what_is_a_bad_faith/ )
      
   4. Several types:
      1. The “cartoon strawmanner” presents counter-arguments to something you never actually claimed; they’re fought by pointing out that no one claimed it.
         1. “You can’t call everyone you disagree with a Nazi”
            
      2. The “lie detector,” an evolved form of the strawmanner, insists you mean what you don’t mean, and should be mocked for acting like a psychic.
         1. “You actually want us all to starve!”
            
      3. The “purity tester” points out that sometimes, advocates of your view have behaved hypocritically, or in a way that looks hypocritical if you squint, real judgmental-like. They’re bullshitting you, they don’t really care about ideological purity. Ask them whose authority they believe in.
         1. “How can you support the Green New Deal when you don’t recycle?”
            
      4. The “free speech” advocate. They confuse disagreement with silencing, delegitimization, and censorship. While they believe in “free speech,” it turns out what that really means in practice is promoting their speech and the speech of people they agree with. Free speech advocates think that they and their peers deserve a platform, but they never recognize that platform space is actually limited and contested. The freeze peach advocate should be reminded that no one is entitled to a platform and no one is actually preventing them from speaking. More importantly, their attention should be refocused to the actual policy debates at hand.
         1. “You just want to take away my free speech”
            
      5. The “logic nerd” has a very clear argument. The argument has multiple parts, each of which is impeccable and internally consistent. The logic nerd has his facts straight, too, and has a number of counterarguments ready to deploy should you try to poke holes. In fact, the logic nerd has three rhetorical questions ready to go to expose your fallacious reasoning and will ask them, in turn, regardless of what you say or do. I came to realize that politics isn’t a dispute over which facts are true or whether your logic is valid. It’s a dispute over which facts are the most relevant to a debate and what logic we should follow when setting and enforcing laws. (see also: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/sea-lioning and http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9 )
         
      6. The “both siderist” is very reasonable. So reasonable, in fact, that people who care about politics actually look very unreasonable by comparison: Did you hear about the bad thing Republicans did? Well, Democrats did a bad thing too once, and it’s all quite unfortunate that everyone can’t be as reasonable as me.Has the both siderist ever taken any actions to try to improve the political system? Well, it’s funny that you ask; no, they haven’t. What they have done is ask everyone, very nicely, to be civil and take it easy and not get too political with all that politics. The committed both siderist must never admit that one party or one side in a debate is worse than the other. If they did, they might have to do something about it.
         1. “There was very bad people on both sides”
            
   5. See also:
      https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-bad-faith-arguments-7-terrible-arguments-in-your-mentions-ee4f194afbc9
      and
      https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2008/09/08/false-witnesses/
      and
      (video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESAXZ4AA-9I
      
3. Principle of Falsification and the Null Hypothesis:
   1. How would you know if you are wrong? (This is a Null Hypothesis)
      1. This prevents you and your interlocutor from moving the goal post
      2. This prevents bad faith arguments
   2. If you can’t come up with a Null Hypothesis, it means your claim is unfalsifiable and not scientific.
   3. See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ (video) https://staff.washington.edu/lynnhank/Popper-1.pdf

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

COGNITIVE BIASES

Cognitive biases are subconscious shortcuts (also referred to as heuristics) our brains make that can cause you to make irrational judgements. These evolved to help limit conscious decision making. However, it can cause problems when it influences the way we view particular subjects. I picked the ones that I view as most influential to debate. The sources I’m linking below will have more than what I’ve provided. Also, know the examples are going to be biased as they are based on my personal experiences. There is evidence of these biases across the political spectrum.

1. Anchoring: The first thing you judge influences your judgment of all that follows.
   Example: Obama stated that he would be the most transparent administration. You view this as positive. However, you ignore the fact that he treated whistleblowers punitively and still view him as having a transparent administration.
   Problem: The first thing said is influencing your judgement when you would believe differently had it not been said.
   Fix: be aware of the anchoring bias and it’s common forms
   
2. The Sunk Cost Fallacy: You irrationally cling to things that have already cost you something.
   Example: “We need to stick with this unhelpful policy because we fought tooth and nail against the other party for it!”
   Problem: The thing you are clinging to is costing you twice. Once for when you originally made the decision and once again now that you are clinging to the unhelpful thing again.
   Fix: If it is a problem now, take efforts to fix it. Just because it worked in the past doesn’t mean you need to cling to it now.
   
3. The Availability Heuristic: people generally make judgments and decisions on the basis of the most relevant memories that they retrieve and that are available at the time that the assessment or judgement is made.
   Example: “I hear on the news that more mass shootings are happening, so it must be happening more frequently” or “I’ve never have seen anyone being racist, so racism doesn’t exist anymore”
   Problem: Just because you personally see or hear about something more often doesn’t mean that the thing, as a whole, is happening more frequently. It very well could be true, but don’t rely on the data you already have in your mind do your own research. (a good place to start is here: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/mass-shootings.html)
   Fix: Look at scientific data and don’t base it on your own experience
   
4. Representativeness Heuristic: general tendency to treat individuals as representative of their entire category.
   Example: “All gun owners are violent”
   Problem: Unless the definition requires, individuals don’t always represent their groups and stereotypes.
   Fix: Treat individuals as individuals
   
5. Confirmation bias: tendency to look for and favor information that confirms our beliefs.
   Example: “See, this one, specific glacier hasn’t melted and is actually growing. I told you climate change isn’t real!”
   Problem: this causes us to ignore or minimalize contradictory data
   Fix: Go out of your way to find evidence that disproves your beliefs, then evaluate that evidence.
   
6. Ingroup Bias: The tendency to favor and believe our own group as opposed to others who we treat with prejudice.
   Example: “Liberals don’t know what they’re talking about” and “Mexicans are lazy.” Problem: Outsiders can be just as reasonable as insiders.
   Fix: judge people on an individual basis
   
7. The Dunning-Kruger Effect: The less you know about a subject, the more confident you will likely be; and, the more you know, the less confident you’ll likely be.
   Example: “C02 is actually good for the environment because plants crave it” [experts know that the effect of C02 is more nuanced than this].
   Problem: You don’t know as much as you think you do.
   Fix: Consult experts in the related field or look at the research they are looking at
   
8. Blind Spot Bias: the tendency to presume (subconsciously) that everyone is biased except for you.
   Example: “No, my decisions are all rational, I can’t be influenced by bias”
   Problem: Everyone is influenced by these biases sometimes, even if you know they exist.
   Fix: Be open when people call out your bias
   ___________________
   Sources:
   https://conceptually.org/concepts/cognitive-biases
   https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/cognitive-biases/?utm_term=.2519225fd93c
   https://yourbias.is/

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LOGICAL FALLACIES

A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that can prevent arguments from being valid. Below is my attempt to define and help others understand as well as fix problems in our reasoning.

______________________________________
1.Strawman: You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: “I might as well identify as a helicopter”
Problem: you’re not actually seeing the idea the way the other person does and being dishonest in representing their position.
Fix: ask more questions. Utilize the principle of charity.

2.Black-or-white/False Dilemma: You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
Example: “You are either a republican or a democrat”
Problem: There are more options than you presented.
Fix: any time there is an “either…or…,” ask yourself if there are more options

3.Ad Hominem: You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Example: “You are an idiot for believing that” or (more subtlety) “You shouldn’t trust them because of their history of x”
Problem: You’re not actually attacking the argument. I can be an idiot and still make a valid point.
Fix: address the actual argument

4.Appeal to Authority: You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.
Example: “This one scientist thinks that evolution is wrong.”
Problem: Just because an authority figure says it’s wrong/right doesn’t mean it is.
Fix: address the actual argument (why does the figure say it’s wrong?)
Special note: this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

5.Slippery Slope: You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.
Example: “If we make gay marriage legal, people will be able to marry animals.”
Problem: There is no proof presented that it leads to this. It is possible to allow A without Z happening. Also, you aren’t addressing the argument.
Fix: address the argument or prove why it will lead to Z

6.False Cause: You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Example: “All successful people walk fast. Therefore if you walk fast, you will be successful.” Problem: Just because things happen together doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Fix: ask yourself if there are any other possible explanations for the two to be related (successful people usually have busier schedules for example).

7.Tu Quoque (you too) or Whataboutism: You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser – you answered criticism with criticism.
Example: “What about their emails?”
Problem: Does not address the argument or criticism.
Fix: Address the criticism

8.Loaded Question: You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn’t be answered without appearing guilty.
Example: “Have you stopped beating your wife”
Problem: has an assumption built into it.
Fix: principle of charity

9.Burden of Proof: You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Example: “You can’t prove that Bigfoot doesn’t exist”
Problem: If you make the claim, you must provide evidence for the claim.
Fix: provide evidence

10.Personal Incredulity: Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it’s probably not true.
Example: “There are only boys and girls, it’s simple biology” “How can you believe a fish turned into a human with just random things happening over time.”
Problem: You’re making a complex topic simpler than it actually is.
Fix: Learn more about that subject, consult multiple experts who regularly study that field and that subject

11.Bandwagon: You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation.
Example: “It’s just common sense”
Problem: Just because a lot of people believe it doesn’t mean that it is correct or incorrect.
Fix: Address the argument

12.Composition/Division: You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Example: “Stalin was a socialist and was bad, therefore all socialists are bad.” “The church covered up sex-scandals. My aunt is a part of the church, so she’s in on it as well.”
Problem: One member can be different than the group, the group can be different than the member
Fix: Address the subject at hand (either the individual or the group)
Special note: When a part of the whole has a property that, by definition, causes the part to take on that property. “My grandma is part of the KKK, therefore she is racist.”

13.The Fallacy Fallacy: You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
Example: “You used a strawman, so you’re incorrect.”
Problem: A true claim can still be argued wrong. “My dad told me the earth is round, so it must be” is an appeal to authority, but the claim itself (the earth is round) can still be true
Fix: explain why the fallacy doesn’t help their argument and ask them to better explain their argument

14.Ambiguity: You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.
Example: “It is said that we have a good understanding of our universe. Therefore, we know exactly how it began and exactly when.”
Problem: inhibits clear communication or can sometimes imply an assumption
Fix: Ask clarification questions “what do you mean by ‘good understanding’”

15.Special Pleading: You moved the goalposts or made up an exception when your claim was shown to be false.
Example: “You just don’t have enough faith in my psychic abilities for them to work.” Problem: you’re requiring unattainable circumstances or positions to disprove your argument.
Fix: realize it’s okay to be incorrect about a fact

16.The Texas Sharpshooter: You cherry-picked a data cluster to suit your argument, or found a pattern to fit a presumption.
Example: “Facebook says you and this other person are a good match because you have similar political views, like pizza, and soda.”
Problem: There’s more data you are ignoring that would give you a fuller picture.
Fix: Be honest about the data you are using and not using.

17.No True Scotsman: You made what could be called an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of your argument.
Example: “No American can think socialism is a good thing”
Problem: It doesn’t address the argument
Fix: Address the argument

18.Appeal to Emotion: You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Example: “Think of the children”
Problem: It doesn’t address the argument
Fix: Address the argument.
Special note: because we are emotional creatures, appeals to emotions are very good for persuasion, but it’s good to use them to back up logical positions.

19.The Gambler’s Fallacy: You said that ‘runs’ occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins.
Example: “I’ve lost 6 rounds of roulette, I’m sure to win soon!”
Problem: Losing 6 rounds in a row doesn’t increase your chances of winning the next because each time it’s independent of the time before.Fix: Read more about the Gambler’s fallacy

20.Genetic: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
Example: “That information is wrong because it came from Fox which is biased” “That study comes from an academic institution and academic institutions are all left leaning so the study is biased.”
Problem: A less credible source is more likely to be wrong, but it can still contain true information
Fix: Address the information (what about the study or information itself is wrong). Maybe include information from a more credible source
Special note: At times, the origin of the claim is relevant to the truth of the claim. A study authored by oil executives about climate change is likely to have conflicts of interest. It could still be accurate, but it’s more likely to be tainted

21.Begging the Question: You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.
Example: “The reason everyone wants the new doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season!” “It is evil because I say it is.”
Problem: You are saying the same thing twice and presenting the second saying as support, which is not. You are not supporting your argument.
Fix: Find another way to support your argument

22.Appeal to Nature: You argued that because something is ‘natural’ it is therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal. Or that because something isn’t natural it is therefor invalid, unjustified, or bad.
Example: “Vaccines aren’t natural and bad.” “Herbs are natural and good for you.”
Problem: Just because something is natural doesn’t mean it’s good (murder). Just because something isn’t natural doesn’t mean it’s bad (glasses).
Fix: Find another way to support your argument.

23.Middle Ground: You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth.
Example: “Well my friend said vaccines cause autism and this researcher said they don’t, so vaccines must cause some autism”
Problem: Not all middle grounds are the truth. Middle grounds are good things to look for, but you still have to support why this middle ground is necessary. The middle ground between slavery and abolition is a little bit of slavery.
Fix: Support why your middle ground makes sense or find another way to support your argument.

24.Anecdotal: You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
Example: “My grandfather smoked 30 cigarettes a day and lived until he was 97, so don’t believe anything you read about methodologically sound studies proving causal relationships”
Problem: just because you experience it some way doesn’t mean everyone does. Also, our memories are fallible and our perceptions are subject to all kinds of errors themselves. I could also just present the opposite anecdote “My grandfather died after smoke 2 cigarettes, so those studies are right.”
Fix: Use studies or an alternate argument

25.Red Herring: any argument that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.
Example: “There must be a God or something transcendent because there is a common transcultural core to all mystical experiences.P2:” Well, I just think religious people are hypocrites and that religion does more harm than good.”
Problem: You aren’t dealing with the argument.
Fix: Address the argument

___________________________________________
See also:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/52/Argument-from-Hearsay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacieshttp://lucidphilosophy.com/20-red-herring/

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

HIERARCHY OF SOURCES AND EVIDENCE

Not all evidence is equal. Not all sources are equal. Below are guidelines, not definite rules. However, these seem to be consistent for the most part. I’ll list my sources below.
_______________________
Hierarchy of Sources:
Primary sources – not what something said Aristotle said, what Aristotle ACTUALLY said

1. Books
   1. Academic publishers (MIT University Press, U of California, Southern Illinois, etc.)
   2. Trade press (Sage, etc.)
   3. Commercial press (Double Day, Simon & Schuster, etc.)
2. Articles appearing in academic journals
3. Studies and research reports
4. Interviews with an expert in the area you are researching
5. National & international news weeklies (Newsweek, U.S. News & World Reports, The Economist, etc.)
6. Newspapers – real ones (Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc.)
7. Official university and governmental web pages.
8. Public agency and individual reputable researchers’ web pages
9. T.V. and radio shows
10. Interviews with non-experts (your friends)
11. Non-sponsored internet sites, web pages and discussion groups
12. Faith-based texts
13. Anecdotal evidence (own stories)

Source: https://www2.bellevuecollege.edu/artshum/materials/spch/Oleson/winter05/100/HierarchyOFSourceswin05.htm
________________________________
Hierarchy of Scientific Evidence:

1. Systemic Reviews/Meta-analyses
2. Critically-Appraised Topics [Evidence Syntheses and Guidelines]
3. Critically-Appraised Individual Articles [Article Synopses]
4. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
5. Cohort Studies
6. Case-controlled studies case series/reports
7. Background Information/ Expert Opinion
8. Animal Studies
9. In-vitro Research
   
   Sources:
   https://canberra.libguides.com/c.php?g=599346&p=4149721
   https://libguides.winona.edu/c.php?g=11614&p=61584https://libguides.mssm.edu/ebm/hierarchy

______________________________
General Guidelines for internet research:
For your research it is worth considering the following domain-name hierarchy as a general guide to the reliability of information:

1. Education: .edu
2. Academic: .ac
3. Government: .gov
4. Organisation: .org
5. Commercial: .com
6. Network: .net

Although picking sources from the top of this list is no guarantee of the credibility of evidence you find, doing so will generally guide you to those sources published by experts or by established institutions who are interested in reliable public knowledge. The farther down this hierarchy a source sits, the more likely it is to be influenced by private or commercial bias.
Sources:
https://flinders.libguides.com/evaluate
https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_08.phtml

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

EVALUATING RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE

The goal of this article is to assist with evaluating evidence and research. Now there is a medley of ways to do this, I just chose what I viewed as the most comprehensive and thorough ones. Feel free to notify me of others in the comments.
_______________________________________
The CRAAP Test (source: https://guides.library.ucsc.edu/c.php?g=148148&p=971552 )
Currency: the timeliness of the information

• How recent is the information?
• Can you locate a date when the page(s) were written/created/updated?
• Based on your topic, is the information current enough?

Reliability: importance of the information

• What kind of information is included in the Web site?
• Is the content primarily fact, or opinion? Is the information balanced, or biased?
• Does the author provide references for quotations and data?
• If there are links, do they work?

Authority: the source of the information

• Can you determine who the author/creator is? is there a way to contact them?
• What are their credentials (education, affiliation, experience, etc.)?
• Who is the publisher or sponsor of the site? Are they reputable?

Accuracy: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the information

• Is it accurate? Is it supported by evidence?
• Is the information balanced or biased?
• Was it peer-reviewed?
• Can you verify the information from another reliable source?
• Are there spelling, grammar, or typographical errors?
• Can you determine who the author/creator is? is there a way to contact them?

Purpose: the reason the information exists

• What’s the intent of the Web site (to persuade, to sell you something, etc.)?
• What is the domain (.edu, .org, .com, etc.)?
• Are there ads on the Web site?
• How do they relate to the topic being covered (e.g., an ad for ammunition next to an article about firearms legislation)?
• Is the author presenting fact, or opinion? Who might benefit from a reader believing this Web site?
• Based on the writing style, who is the intended audience?
  
  
  Further reading:
  https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/evaluatesources
  https://library.nmu.edu/guides/userguides/webeval.htm

________________________________
This one is mainly for the use of peer-reviewed literature. As far as debates go, you are mainly concerned with the first bracket, Credibility, and Conformity. It’s also a good idea to see if the results are generalizable to whichever topic you are discussing. The others are there for other researchers to judge research papers.
(Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733315001845#fig0025 )

1. Credible
   1. Rigorous
      1. Internally valid- Does the research utilize the Scientific Method in a way that relates to the question? Does it measure what it says it’s measuring?
      2. Reliable- Is it documented in a way that others could reliably attempt to reproduce the test and a similar result?
      3. Contextual-Is it based on existing knowledge that is relevant to the current research?
   2. Consistent- Does the conclusion follow from the results? Does it make sense given our existing knowledge in that area?
   3. Coherent- Have we taken into consideration how our existing knowledge fits in with the current environment?
   4. Transparent- Is the paper written in a thorough? Does it describe the process, its use of the Scientific Method, and how it follows from existing knowledge?
      
2. Contributory
   1. Original-Does the research contain an original result, idea, or procedure?
   2. Relevant-Is the research relevant to current study or idea? Does it have a result that has an application
   3. Generalizable- Who does this result scale to? Just men, young, old, taxi drivers, etc.? Can the result be useful in other contexts
      
3. Communicable
   1. Consumable- Can the public understand this?
   2. Accessible- Who has access to it?
   3. Searchable- Is it easily searchable?
      
4. Conforming
   1. Aligned with regulations
   2. Ethical
   3. Sustainable

______________________________________________________
When evaluating sources and evidence, it is good to check for biases (see my media and publication bias entry below) as well as the hierarchy of evidence and sources (see my entry above covering that as well).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

MEDIA BIAS, FACT CHECKING, AND BOTH SIDERISM

Media bias is a problem in discourse as people don’t know who to trust. I’m hoping that this article will help you detect bias when looking for sources. Keep in mind, a biased source is not necessarily wrong, but is more likely to bend the truth. Also, being biased is not necessarily bad (but more on that later).
________________________________________________________________
What to look for when trying to detect bias:

1. Compare headlines and story content. How accurately does the actual headline encapsulate the article? Does the headline slant one’s reading of the article?

2. Identify politically-charged labels, adjectives, and verbs. For example: Are the contras called “freedom fighters?” Are those who support abortion rights called “abortion activists” or “pro-choice activists?” What connotation does the word “activist” imply? Why?

3. Question the hidden agenda of suspicious sources. Sometimes reporters need to speak with sources “off the record.” Often, however, sources use their anonymity to further their own agendas. When a reporter cites “top U.S. officials,” “company informants,” or other anonymous sources, whose position is left out? What ulterior motive might a source have?

4. Consider whether the placement of ideas and sources affects story impact. Try cutting apart a newspaper article and pasting it back together in a different order. Does the tenor of the article change when dissenting opinions become the lead? Whose position is stressed by the original arrangement of the story?

5. Look for non-white, non-male perspectives. North American media rely heavily on white, male officials for their news. How does the news change when seen from the perspective of women or other races? For a class or group project, have group members tally the sex and race of sources cited in a television, radio or print report. How many are white and male? How many are females or people of color?

6. Compare photographs and photo captions to the news stories connected with them. Are photographs and their captions faithful to the articles connected with them? How does a picture or caption influence the meaning of an article?7. Compare news stories to common sense. Be aware of obvious misstatements of facts that defy common sense. In the aftermath of the Exxon oil spill, one article stated that much of the oil spill “is gone, most by natural action.” So where did it go? Did it evaporate — or is it now mixed with billions of gallons of water?

8. Be suspicious of polls and statistics. Polling data and statistics are notoriously deceptive. Ask “which perspective does this data seem to support?” Then try rearranging the same data so that it presents a different perspective. [My addition:] Try to look for primary sources from academic institutions when looking for data. Take media polls with a grain of salt as they are likely only polling their audience, skewing their data away from the public at large. [end addition]
Source: http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/news-beyond-myth-objectivity

Other questions to ask when looking for bias:
https://fair.org/take-action-now/media-activism-kit/how-to-detect-bias-in-news-media/

And here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

A really good exercise for improving bias detection skills: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/exercise-bias-detection/

Critical Literacy Skills: http://www.randomhouse.com/highschool/RHI_magazine/active_citizens/freyfisher2.htmlhttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/teaching-in-the-post-truth-era_b_58597f2de4b0630a2542361b ________________________________________________________________
Media Bias: Who’s Left, Who’s Right, and Who is Factual

Alright, so bias exists. Then there must be some way we can determine who has the least amount of bias and put them on a scale from left to right…right? Well, there’s a problem: Although we kind of have an idea of which companies go one way and which go to another, it’s harder to pinpoint scientifically. There have been several different looks into bias, and each researcher has gotten slightly different results from different methods and defining bias (or the left v right lean) differently. Below is what I’ve found.

Source: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

Source: https://www.adfontesmedia.com

Source: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/Structure_of_Political_Media_Coverage_files/quoting_patterns.pdf

Source: https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

Source: https://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

Further Reading: https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444
See Facebook Feeds based on political bias: http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/#/guns
________________________________________________________________
Media Watchdog Groups:
Conservative Leaning
http://www.aim.org/
http://www.mrc.org/
Liberal Leaning
http://fair.org/
https://mediamatters.org/

Nonpartisan Fact Checking Organizations:
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.people-press.org/
http://www.journalism.org/
http://shorensteincenter.org/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://www.politifact.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
________________________________________________________________
Both Siderism Bias: When Attempting to be Unbiased Leads to Bias and Worse

Bias is always bad. However, when some groups attempt to correct for bias, they over-correct and become biased in the opposing direction. False equivalency is when you pretend that two sides are similar when they are not. There is no equivalence between the two sides of a “debate” when one is supported by evidence, and the other side has no evidence, or evidence of low quality. Here are some examples:

“When people said the earth was flat, they were wrong. You think the earth is a sphere, you are wrong too (it’s an oblate spheroid)” – The statements are technically correct, but it’s making an implicit argument that they are equivalently wrong, which is not correct.”

“There are science deniers on both sides; conservatives reject climate science and liberals reject GMO and vaccine science”- This is technically true, sure, there are liberals and conservatives who reject science. HOWEVER, the number of those on the right who deny science outweigh those on the left (here: https://skepticalscience.com/stop-blaming-both-sides-america-climate-failures.htm
lhttps://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/22105/833.pdf )

The Problems:

1. Both Siderism promotes political laziness. I don’t have to vote if “both sides have awful candidates” because nothing I can do will change this.
   
2. It leaves out nuanced discussion. “Gun Rights” vs “Gun Control” is not the full spectrum of the debate. Most pro-gun advocates are for some “gun control” laws and most gun control advocates are for “reasonable rights to carry.” But there’s also some gun-control advocates who want specific groups to not have guns (i.e. criminals, immigrants, etc.). And there are some gun advocates who want specific groups armed (namely minorities).
   
3. It prevents productive discussion. Okay, so democrats use cars which contributes to climate change. Does that hypocrisy delegitimize the climate science? No, it still means we need to do something about it.
   
4. It normalizes things that aren’t normal. “There’s blame on both sides.” Getting hit with a car gets compared to regular political violence (shoving and pushing).
   
5. Sometimes one side is right or “the middle ground” is bad as well. When one side is pro-slavery and the other is anti-slavery, the middle ground is “a little bit of slavery.” The 3/5ths Compromise determined that black people weren’t full people. It was still wrong even though it was the middle ground between both sides.

The Fix: Be critical when you read “both sides.” Don’t assume it to be wrong (both sides can be in the wrong or the right), but just use it as a reminder to be critical of what you are reading.

Source:

https://extranewsfeed.com/the-end-of-both-siderism-why-we-need-to-confront-the-consequences-of-anti-democratic-political-17b64c5f5a89

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

CONCLUSION

Thank you if you read all of this. I hope it was helpful. Please feel free to comment any additional resources you think would be beneficial for this project.

Zen is a Meaningless Language Game: Every Word in this Document is the Same (and isn’t)

Zen Enlightenment is an Experience

First and foremost, Zen Buddhism seems to be striving for an experience. I think that this experience may be the fabled “peak experience” that is fundamental to all other religions. This experience could predate the evolution of our prefrontal cortex and be pre-cognitive. It may even be the way animals “see” the world. Human experience is mediated through language at an unconscious level. Zen Buddhism seems to be trying to momentarily rid people of that lens. From that, it follows that “enlightenment” doesn’t change perception itself, but how perception is experienced. A red apple will still look like a red apple, but it might look like a more beautiful red apple.

Language only Symbolizes Reality

Any word, sentence, or symbol used does not mirror reality but only represents it. If I say “biting an apple” your hunger is not satiated, nor is an apple automatically put in your mouth. A mental image or representation, not the actual thing. This leads us to the main problem with language. Language suggests that “_=0” when, in reality, only “_=_”. Again, even this symbolism is inaccurate because it is not the actual experience.

If symbols can only so much represent reality, then there will be points in which the symbols fail to accurately represent reality. This is where many paradoxes are born. “All is one and one is all” is a way Zen Buddhists describe experience because language doesn’t fully describe “_”. Contradictions are the only way to describe experience because language doesn’t suffice to recreate reality.

Zen Masters play a Language Game

It seems like Zen masters use a “coded” language. Oddly enough, this coded language has no meaning. To rephrase: meaninglessness is the code. When a Zen master says, “This is Zen” he might as well say “Zen Zen Zen,” “____,” “.” or “ “. This is in order to test the students progress towards enlightenment. For Example:

Q: “What is the sound of one hand clapping” The student may answer in a way that suggests they are attached to the words: either through words “like a clap” or through a behavior like closing one hand. This student would still be looking at the world through language and would be said to only understand “Two” (i.e. duality).

Another student may answer in a way that suggests that they are unattached to the words. Answers like “A swan perches on the roof of a mindless thermostat” or putting one’s shoes on their head would show this understanding. They would be said only to understand “One” (i.e. unity).

However, this student may only be miming the correct phrases or behaviors. To combat “false enlightenment,” the teacher would ask further questions switching between the two types of questions until the student was enlightened.

Not One, Not Two

The primary phrase to understand enlightenment seems to be “All is one and one is all.” We need to slowly digest this contradiction.

“One is all” is easy to understand. It’s duality:

                                People are people          
                              objects are objects     
                              symbols are symbols     
                                 words are words     
                                   one is one       
              “.” Is the demarcation of the end of a sentence. 

This suggest that maybe P=Q & P=Y but not Q=Y

“All is One” is easy to understand partially. The part people get is that “P=P” and “Q=P”, but don’t also understand “= = P” “PPP” and “””“. In other words, the spaces in words aren’t separate from the symbols that separate and make up words nor are the experiences of reading the words separate from the words themselves.

                                  People are One    
                                 Objects are One  
                                Symbols are One   
                                 Words are One   
                                    OneOneOne   
                                       “.”        
                                       “ “            
   "                                                                  "

Indexicals and Reference Confusion are Key

To understand the “One” concept, students must first focus on indexicals. Indexicals are words like “I, you, it, me, we, here, now, this” that can have multiple referents and meanings. “This is Zen” could be talking about a flower near the speaker, the presence of the speaker, or something else entirely, or all the above. “We” could refer to the speaker and listener, the speaker’s community, humankind, or all kind. “You” could refer to the listener or “Tao” (similar concept to God) or both.

Zen masters seem to use this confusion to test and help their students. “I love you” at one level of understanding could mean that the speaker cares for the listener; at another understanding, that a god is speaking through the speaker saying it cares for the listener; at what seems like the “highest” level, it could mean both nothing and everything concurrently.

Zen is In-between All is One and One is All

In order to reach enlightenment, one must first forget that One is all. That is, one must strip meaning from all language. This sentence means nothing, same of the spaces between. This helps get one to the experience of that which cannot be talked about (read that again). Understanding All is One gives one the Truth.

However, one must also keep in mind that “One is All.” This means remembering that words do have meaning. Other people use language and it’s how we mainly communicate so don’t abandon it. Understanding One is All keeps one sane.

A Zen story exists of a girl who reached the truth “All is One” and started destroying sacred texts and statues while proudly exclaiming “I am Buddha! I am Buddha!” The father, concerned, asked a Zen Master “what’s wrong with my daughter, can you help her?” After which, the Zen Master told the little girl “grass is grass and mountains are mountains.” She then fixed the statues. Basically, the girl had understood the principle “All is One” but neglected the principle “One is All.”

Why Zen?

Zen seems to be the true answer to existential dread. The world doesn’t inherently have meaning and we are meaning-making creatures. This is what causes our angst. The world is “_” and we say it must be “0”. The only way to be on par with existence is to also be “_” ourselves. We must answer life’s “_” with a “_” of our own.

I’m sorry this whole post was me just repeating the same word over and over. This is the true meaning of Zen:

The Ice Plains

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt. 4)

On Time

Throughout I have been attacking the boundaries of space, now I plan to go after the other portion of the fourth dimension: time. There are two divisions of time I will discuss: Radial/Rotational and Linear. Radial Time is the way we measure time by years or even minutes. Radial time is usually subjective. This is usually measured by rotation such as the earth rotating around the sun. The second is Linear Time. This is a more absolute type of time measured abstractly by past, present, and future. We usually suggest Linear time begins at the Big Bang.

There is a problem with Radial time: it is rotational and subjective. We cannot find a universal way to measure time. For example, if we were on an electron we would measure time by rotations around the nucleus. However, different atoms wouldn’t have the same time and even different electrons may have different times. We measure rotational time by Earth’s rotation around the sun. But if we were to move outside the solar system, we would not be able to use this as the basis. So we may consider measuring the sun’s rotation around the center of the Milky Way. But it keeps on going outward and two problems arise. One, when we get to a certain level, we cannot be sure that they orbit anything, so there is no way to measure time. The second problem is due to the infinite nature of space. As stated in the last section, there is no center. The center will always have to be moved proportionally and subjectively.  You cannot measure time by the rotation around a ‘not center’.

Linear time is not so assured either. There are two possible problems.  Even if we assume that the big bang (which also assumes a center) is the absolute beginning, we still suffer a problem. The problem is that the big bang is an expansion event, it has the opposite effect of gravity- it pushes things away. So if something were to be there, it would not orbit it. If nothing were to orbit it, how would time happen? I may concede that time happens, the passing of one moment to another does happen. We definitely would not be able to measure it, but it may still happen. Time is solely a change within the dimension in space. Time would be measured because Object A would move from Point 1 (the place where the big bang took place) to Point 2 (the place where expansion moved Object A) and has a memory of Point 1. We would still be able to measure time in abstract terms such as ‘past’, ‘present’, and future, just not using concrete terms such as 1 year. However, as was stated earlier, there has always been something and never solely nothing. With that we should accept that the instance of the big bang wasn’t something being transformed from nothing, but probably the change of something into another form of something or just an expansion of the original something.

If you have bought my previous premises though, you should concede that there is no ‘beginning’. If you accepted my premise towards the start of this article that only something exists, then there has always been a something and never a nothing. If you have also accepted the fact that there is no center, then it should be clear that Linear time does not exist. There is no center point to measure movement from. There is no beginning to measure a starting point from. Therefore, there is no time.

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt. 3)

Fractals

The mimicking of the macro with the micro and vice versa causes an image to come to mind. The large Universe gets smaller and we see galaxies, then planets, and so on until we are at quarks and the Higgs-Boson particle. When I think of this I then am reminded of fractals. Fractals are these shapes that repeat endlessly the further you zoom in. True fractals don’t exist in nature; however you have fractal-esque shapes in those that contain the Fibonacci spiral. You can zoom in on the spiral and keep on zooming in and you will keep on seeing a spiral.

Imagine a Cartesian plane. As it zooms in, you just end up with more lines and repetition. You can do the same in reverse. When you zoom out, you will continuously end up with the same figure regardless of scale. Notice how the figure will require you to zoom several levels before the figure repeats. For example: Level 1, L2, L3, L4…. The figure will appear the same at levels 1, 4, 8, 12…. In between those intervals, however, it may appear vastly different. Notice that, although L1 and L4 may appear the same they are mathematically different. L1 may be -1 and L4 may be -1.0001.
As discussed earlier, things at the macro level seem to be replicated at the micro level. What if this is just the scale getting to the point where things look similar? What if the planets are L1 and atomic space is L4?

If we were to accept this proposition, two possibilities can be realized. Either the universe is completely fractal and will cyclically repeat, or the universe infinitely regresses in both macro and micro directions.

If the universe is completely fractal, then that would mean when you look in at tree branches you will notice the bark. Go in further, you will see plant cells. Some more you will see atoms. But these atoms would actually be planets and galaxies. Essentially, the universe would reflect in on itself.

I cannot accept this theory. I would argue that the universe is fractal like, but not fractal. The planets and galaxies may hold certain observable similarities but do not hold similarities in properties. If you were to collide multiple Saturns together, you will not get the same end product if you put multiple carbons together. It is also hard to imagine a world where Saturn is made of multiple mini Saturns inside of it. The last counter I have to this idea is that things on the macro are not affected by those in the micro. Every time an atom collides in the Hadron Collider we don’t see a large explosion in our night sky. It is improbable that the universe reflects inward on itself.

The other possibility, that the universe is fractal like and will regress infinitely, seems more probable. This is to say that when you go from L1 to L2…L4 and so on, that L1 and L4 will look alike, but will not have the same properties. This is similar to looking at a Cartesian plane and zooming. The squares may look the same, but will have completely different measurements (2, -1 vs. 2.050037, -1.020045).

Finding a Center

Something to be noticed about this infinite regression is that it will not have a center. If we go off continuously macro-ly or micro-ly, we will never find an end. For things to have a center they must have an edge, boarder, or end. As suggested in the first section, there is no boarder to the universe. When looking at the universe, it goes off in all directions without end like a Cartesian plane. Therefore, there is no center.

An objection to this would be the fact that we use the populated (where there is stuff) part of the universe as the center. This won’t work for several reasons. If we were to do this, it would be completely relative to our portion of the universe. We assume that our portion of the universe (all the galaxies inside the known universe) is the only one. Why not assume there are other populated portions of the universe past the edge of what we know as the universe? My other counterexample is that we don’t use a chocolate chip to measure the radius of the cookie. We need to know where the edge of the cookie is in order to measure the radius. And since there is no edge to the cookie, the cookie goes on indefinitely in all directions.

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt 2)

Patterns in Nature

We can notice, if we look hard enough, that things on the Macro scale mimic those on the micro scale. Figure 1 helps illustrate this.

For example: free floating bodies. At the macro level, you have planets that orbit stars. You also have things like meteors that have no orbit and just float around without a specific orbit (although keeping the inertia from the orbit that gave them momentum originally). Meteors and other free floating bodies can get caught in each other’s gravitational pull and collide to create planets. At the micro level, you have electrons that orbit nuclei. There are also smaller particles called quarks that create the components of atoms.

The Fibonacci sequence is another repeat throughout the system of nature. The Fibonacci is a specific sequence. The rule is F_n= F_n-1 + F_n-2. For example: 1,1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, etc. This composes two ‘golden’ measurements: the golden spiral and the golden square, collectively known as the golden ratio. Both can be created with these integers. Both are repeated in nature. The spiral of a seashell mimics the two spirals that compose a galaxy. Many plants exhibit this spiral as well, including pinecones and roses. There are a few non-spiral shapes that can be shown to be of the Fibonacci sequence. The branching of such figures as dendrites, lightning, and tree branches are an example. They branch from 1, to 2, to 3, to 5, and so on.

There is a potential criticism of my hypothesis that the macro mirrors the micro and vice versa: humans have tendency to archetype or symbolize things. This may take down the examples I have comparing a human arm to earth and cities to the circulatory system. However it will not compensate for the Fibonacci sequence examples (which can be mathematically proven). Note that it is not one thing; it is a series of things. Even if that is the only argument that withstands its critics, it contains not one example, but many.

The Untimely Infinite Universe (Pt 1)

The Infamy of Infinity

In the current scheme of things, we are taught to think of time and space as finite. We get stuck into the view due to the fact that the things around us our finite. The water is separate from the ground; Venus is separate from the sun, and so on. Things begin and then they end. Where the water ends, earth begins; where the earth ends, the air begins. One might think that this happens just because we can imagine the finite more clearly than the infinite.

The reason this dichotomy exists is due to the fallibility of human perspective. When a leaf dies we say that it ‘ceases to exist’. This is the natural process of decay and death. We assume this must be the opposite of existence. In reality, this is not the case. The particles that compose of it never actually die, meaning they don’t disappear. No, these particles merely change form. As the law of conservation states: energy is neither created nor destroyed, merely transformed.  Therefore the particles always exist. Decay is merely the moving of matter from one state to another. Humans have only had the second perspective within the last 100 years. Because of the first perspective being prevalent for so long, we are stuck with this idea of finite, that things have an end.

Imagine a red circle. Now look out towards its boundary. What do you see on the other side? White or black maybe. Others say nothing. However you cannot think of ‘nothing’. That white or black space you think of is ‘something’. You can apply this same thing to the concept of the Universe, a supposedly bounded entity. But when you get to the edge, what happens? Do you hit a bubble that you cannot past; an ‘invisible wall’. I will argue that you will be able to go on forever past this so-called ‘boundary’.

Throughout this paper I will term things ‘infinite’ and ‘finite’. Respectively I am referring to something ‘without end’ and something ‘with end’.

On Suicide

Im reading a philosophical paper on suicide for a class and i came across some terribly interesting lines:

“[committing suicide] amounts to a confession…. A confession that life is too much or you dont understand it…. it is merely confessing that life ‘isnt worth the trouble.'”

– Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus”

Later he describes that the realization of life’s absurdity causes one to give up (suicide) or create hope, which Camus describes negatively because, to him, hope amounts to a delusion. He suggests that what we should do is bask in life’s absurdness (the fact that it has no meaning) and just examine it.

The Abyss

Red Rose

I haven’t created one of these in a while. The lyrics are some of mine the guys put on the fridge; we get to admire them every day!