Question

Is questioning official sources an essential component of critical thinking? Why or Why Not?

Answer 1

@Shadow, @Ultrilliam, @ggmydude, @Vocaloid, @TheSmartOne, @HanAkoSolo

Answer 2

Questioning is an intensive task because you can make up all types of possibilities.
Yes, if you're thinking critically, then you should consider the different possibilities. However, it's essential not to confuse possibilities with probabilities because there is always an infinite number of possibilities.
So, we don't need to go through all the infinite possibilities, only the more probable ones.

Answer 3

I get what you're trying to say, however, questioning involves more than just considering possibilities and probabilities. It also involves the process of verifying whether events that have been reported as having occurred actually occurred and verifying whether information that has been reported as fact, has indeed been recorded truthfully. Furthermore, it involves continually evaluating whether a source is indeed trustworthy. For example, a person or an entity can tell the truth for ten years and gain your trust only to tell a lie afterwards and make you look as a fool later.

Answer 4

ETA: Questioning is not limited to what has been stated above.

Answer 5

I would like it if there are proofs/verifications for everything. But wouldn't there be an infinite regress if we go on questioning the authenticity of everything?
Also, what kind of verification are we looking for?
What kind of verification can we trust?

Answer 6

Well, if it is a matter of life or death and affects billions of people, then the process of questioning and verification becomes all the more essential. Because if the source is wrong, fraudulent, erroneous, or misleading, then billions can die, perhaps because those same billions were deceived into believing what they assumed were official trustworthy sources. Sources they trusted for years.

Answer 7

That is a possibility, and it does make sense that we can't just blindly trust anybody. And a lot of times, we lack the knowledge to verify whether or not something is right or not. How do we deal with this?

Answer 8

By not blindly accepting information that comes from official sources, questioning official channels and resources of information and considering other alternatives. If the information being reported or published by official sources is truly for the benefit of humanity, then that source should not mind the questions and they should be willing to defend the information given at every turn rather than expect blind compliance. If blind compliance becomes the norm by which people respond to information coming from official sources, then our very livelihood could be at risk as it is now. We're in the situation we're in because most people decided to trust the media rather than ignore. That includes healthcare, politicians, law enforcement, businesses, right on up to individuals themselves. I've heard many say things like "Fox News is Faux News", or "you shouldn't always trust the media" but then when they started reporting about the Coronavirus, people complied more than they questioned when questioning is one of the most important and effective forms of communication there is. Had we questioned, then it would have forced those relaying the orders to go back to their sources and get those questions answered. You keep asking until you find a flaw or an inconsistency. There are inconsistencies coming out now concerning the Coronavirus Pandemic, however, it may be too late because they have already done things like suspend interstate travel. Most of the world is still on lockdown because most of us believed rather than practice actual critical thinking. The concepts of critical thinking need to be overhauled and re-evaluated.

Answer 9

does every true statement have a proof?

Answer 10

It's not about evaluating whether every statement is true. Only those that could potentially put billions of lives at risk. We need to think critically and constantly evaluate the sources we deem to be trustworthy.

Answer 11

So how do we evaluate the truth value of those statements? I guess we would need a base(Axioms) from where we could start the evaluation process, Just like how we use Axioms to find the truth value of any mathematical statement.

Axioms are true statements without proofs and are the base of any mathematical system.
I think that we'll never be able to find the truth value of every statement, just like how we can't find the truth value of every statement in mathematics no matter what Axiom system we consider as a base. (Godel's Incompleteness theorem)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ndIDcDSGc

Answer 12

The topic of real Critical Thinking extends beyond axioms of mathematical systems.

Answer 13

I mean, we would need an axiom system as a base to start off with

Answer 14

An example would clarify what you mean the best.

Answer 15

I'm assuming that critical thinking aims to analyze something and come to a valid conclusion.
To conclude, we would require an Axiom system.
The Axiom system is like a base.
For example, You may consider written proofs as valid, or video proofs as valid. These proof sources that you believe correct are your Axiom system.

I'm talking about this because if you don't have a base/Axiom system, then you can never really conclude anything because you'll keep questioning everything.
I believe that concluding something is an integral part of the questioning/thinking.

Answer 16

You did not fully address some of @imqwerty 's questions.

How do you feel about the unofficial source? Do you feel the same way about official sources? Why or why not?

Everything you said about official source; do they all apply to unofficial sources as well?

Should we use different standards for official and unofficial sources? Why or why not?

Answer 17

A very interesting discussion, and to add on

I think we should always critically evaluate any information that comes to us. Especially living in the 21st century, one would think that we would be living in a state of enlightenment, but instead we're faced with so much misinformation that we ultimately have to filter what we receive. The easiest way to do that is by the sources, but you have to go back to the original source because it's very easy for a message to get misrepresented, misattributed, misunderstood. Also, there's people out there whose sole purpose is to spread misinformation and as such, when things get shared, they can be altered so it's crucial to remain critical and evaluate your sources and try to verify with the original source.

But I have to agree with what qwerty brought up. There has to be some axiom, a basic fundamental truth, by which you can evaluate information to be truthful. You can't just critically think. Everyone is at different levels and common sense isn't really common. People really love conspiracy theories. They love coincidences and logical fallacies just as much.

But getting back to the topic-
What exactly constitutes an official source and what makes an unofficial source an unofficial source?

From my understanding, if we ignore governments for the time being because politics is a whole different world, an official source comprises of a group of experts in their field. So for example, doctors form their own group. And if a medical association released a statement saying that: putting this oil brand in your car will keep it's engine running longer, you obviously wouldn't take it very seriously and you can't really trust them. They're experts in one field and they can't just say anything about everything.

Now even then, you'll sometimes end up with two camps because there's not enough information to confidently reach a conclusions. That's just the reality of life because there's so much complexity in this world- there's a lot we don't fully understand nor will we ever, at least maybe not in our lifetimes.

So adding on to qwerty and geerky's questions: how would you define an official source? An unofficial source? Who makes up an unofficial source? Is it just one person?

What allows for an unofficial source to be trusted? When should you trust an official source over an unofficial source?

Answer 18

Forgive me if my response sounds hasty. I don't always have plenty time on my hands.

Regarding Axiom System: My question to @imqwerty is What is the axiomatic system of official sources?

Answers to questions posed:
Does every truth statement have proof ? The obvious answer is no.
How do we evaluate the truth value of these statements? Evaluating the source requires critical thinking which involves questioning all sources whether official or unofficial. (Express doubt; research the history of the sources; find if there are hidden agendas involved, see what the other side is saying; apply common sense) Blind compliance is ignorance.

How do you feel about the unofficial source? Do you feel the same way about official sources? Why or why not? Feelings can get in the way of evaluating the legitimacy of a source. You don't use feelings to do that. You use critical thinking.

Everything said about official source, does it also apply to unofficial sources? YES. There's one criteria for which to evaluate any source: Critical Thinking. Critical Thinking involves not immediately believing and digesting information just because it comes from a so-called official source. Question the source (challege, express doubt, research the history of the source, research what the other side is saying, apply common sense).

how would you define an official source? - There are known set criteria for evaluating whether a source is credible. authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, coverage, and appearance. However, this is flawed and limited as you will hopefully see by watching the included video below. The missing criteria involves evaluating whether or not manipulation is involved.

For the most part, official sources have certain credentials that
An unofficial source? Who makes up an unofficial source? Is it just one person? - Unofficial sources are Alternative sources. Alternative sources fail to meet the criteria for credible mainly because of the "authority" component of credibility. Many people associate "authority" with "official". Without which, the alternative sources are cast aside.

Alternative sources sometimes expose the manipulations of the official sources. Does that mean we can trust unofficial sources? Not necessarily. What I'm trying to say is to "Consider the information given by the alternative source. Use common sense. Question everything. Consider that the official source might be mixing truth with manipulation and lies." Can all doctors be trusted? No. Some of these doctors that can't be trusted publish documentation for NIH. Can all politicians be trusted? No. Some of these politicians that can't be trusted influence legislation that might be for the benefit of themselves more than that of the masses. Can all news reporters/columnists be trusted? No. Some of them report news for the media and can lie, twist, manipulate, and confuse the masses. These are just some of the reasons why we must question the official sources. The following video might answer more of your questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY8Nfzcn1qQ

Answer 19

When I said you did not fully address some of @imqwerty 's questions, I am referring to those questions:

- What kind of verification are we looking for?
- What kind of verification can we trust?
- We lack the knowledge to verify whether or not something is right or not. How do we deal with this?

You also didn't answer @TheSmartOne 's last two questions:

- What allows for an unofficial source to be trusted?
- When should you trust an official source over an unofficial source?

You simply just elaborated on why official sources shouldn't be trusted. You simply ask us to "use critical thinking."

That does not contribute to anything.

You also didn't provide solutions.

You seem to dodge questions that require you to go depth into how to use critical thinking and especially on how to know when to trust the official sources.

Why is that?

You spent quite a lot of time explaining why we shouldn't just blindly trust the official sources. This is just strawman fallacy. I am sure we all already knew to not just blindly trust official sources in the first place.

It's almost like you aren't trying to get us to question sources in general, but rather trying hard to get us to not trust the official COVID19 sources anymore. Your objective is to convince us to stop trusting these sources, no matter what. You have your own agenda.

Have you even considered the possibility that we attempted to use critical thinking and concluded that COVID19 is simply a big unfortunate natural event?

Perhaps we didn't "blindly trust" sources, but rather misused our critical thinking? There is a difference.

Why not taking the time to educate us on how to use critical thinking instead?

Answer 20

"I don't always have plenty time on my hands."

Billion people's lives are at stake. Keep that in mind.

Answer 21

Do vaccines cause autism

Answer 22

A trusted official might indeed spread wrong information for whatever reasons, and hence we shouldn't blindly trust them. However, if we keep questioning every source of information, then the questioning would go on forever unless you define a base (axiom set), which you certainly know is true.

Now, coming to "What is the axiomatic system of official sources? "

I'll give an example of what could be an Axiomatic system to determine the truth value for official sources: apriori and a posteriori analysis or Logic. I believe that the information is all out there; we just need to dig it up. And once you have all the information laid in front of you, you can decide whether some statement is true or false based on your reasoning and experience. However, this system has it's own limitations. Gaining access to information is not as easy as it may seem. You might have to do illegal stuff to dig out the information. Also, you can always question whether or not you have all the available information. This type of analysis is also highly subjective to an individual's thinking and reasoning capabilities.

We introduced axioms because it's essential to conclude critical thinking. And to make a firm conclusion, we need an axiom system.

Answer 23

Just want to remind we shouldn't be discussing whether to blindly trust a official sources or not. This is strawman from Hero. We all already knew. We agreed to not blindly trust anything. It is painfully obvious.

In order to trust source, we firstly need to use critical thinking.

So the main question is already addressed and answered.

Us trusting them does not prove that we did so blindly.

Answer 24

The main question is not genuine. It is rhetoric question. He does not like us believing that lockdowns are justified and such stuffs.

Answer 25

i lost it at the first paragraph