Skeptical Knowing

I am a thorough-going adherent of "critical analysis/skeptical analysis"...not only as a philosophical position but also as a way of thinking in general.  In this age ... when we can get almost any kind of information on the internet, when Fox News passes itself off as a news outlet, and when election campaigns are full of propaganda rhetoric ... how do we find out the truth?  The following is an excerpt from a book review about "Blur," a book that proposes guidelines to "skeptical knowing."

Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload, by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel

Excerpt from journalism.org:

From two seasoned journalists, the authors of the essential "The Elements of Journalism," comes a savvy guide for citizens who struggle to navigate our information-saturated age of viral and opinion-based "news."  Amid the hand-wringing over the death of "true journalism" in the Internet Age -- the din of bloggers, the echo chamber of Twitter, the predominance of Wikipedia -- veteran journalists and media critics Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel have written a pragmatic, serious-minded guide to navigating the twenty-first century media terrain.  Yes, old authorities are being dismantled, new ones created, and the very nature of knowledge has changed.  However, seeking the truth remains the purpose of journalism -- and the object for those who consume it.  How do we discern what is reliable?  How do we determine which facts (or whose opinions) to trust?  Blur provides a road map, or more specifically, reveals the craft that has been used in newsrooms by the very best journalists for getting at the truth.  In an age when the line between citizen and journalist is becoming increasingly unclear, Blur is a crucial guide for those who want to know what's true.

Ways of Skeptical Knowing: Six Essential Tools for Interpreting the News

1. What kind of content am I encountering?

2. Is the information complete? If not, what's missing?

3. Who or what are the sources and why should I believe them?

4. What evidence is presented and how was it tested or vetted?

5. What might be an alternative explanation or understanding?

6. Am I learning what I need?

End excerpt

These should be the questions we constantly ask.  If we disagree, we should be able to state why.  But just as important, if we agree, we also need to have sound evidence-based reasons for giving consent rather than withholding it.  We need to be thoroughgoing skeptics of the first order, and we need to challenge everything that we read or are told.  Otherwise, we surrender ourselves to the propaganda machines that perpetually strive to get us to vote, buy, support, believe..