Any course should include logical reasoning and something on challenging assumptions. When someone says something to the effect that "if we assume that ... yada yada yada" -- Is that basic assumption realistic or true? At times I've heard an assumption espoused that was not a fact, but given as a starting point, it could logically lead someone down a fictitious path to a logically correct but nonetheless wrong conclusion.

I have pretty much turned into a skeptic on anything presented as news or journalism. This is a relatively new thing for me overall. People have to become students of language/vocabulary use. There are so many things that you can pick up just by listening doing to the vocabulary and construction of sentences.

I do like that it was mentioned that people need to really dig into "the sources". The problem we see is what someone mentioned - "according to recent studies/research blah blah blah". Never is the source given. To me, then, it means it is unreliable and highly suspect. When I was my latest master's studies, I just made a statement that seemed to be harmless and a ubiquitous known. I said that multiple-choice testing is the most widely used form of testing. Well, the professor grading the paper intimated that he agreed with the sentiment. His beef was that it was a statement of authority. As I was not a recognized authority on the subject, I needed to reword the sentence and give some sources that would support the statement. While I knew what the guy was saying, it just let my guard down and got a little rushed in the moment. Lesson: dig for the resources; reliable ones.

Great thread.

There is a great deal of literature about the media and how we consume it. One thing that needs to be understood is how the business of the media works and what the influences on it are. It is a business, and it is run by people who are trying to earn a living (among other things). Good critical thinking skills and an understanding of how influence works will contribute much to one's being a more intelligent consumer of the media.

Yup, that falls in line with being a skeptic and really listening to what is being said. I find that the shorter the actual quote or sound/video clip, the less value of the report is and the higher the agenda/propaganda value. Context matters.

You check the sources, keeping in mind the reliability of each source. If a newspaper says X, where does it get this information from? Persons A, B, and C? Then check to make sure they actually said it. It's a sort of detective work.

Good one.

The most important word in; 'A study proves....' is the word 'A'. One study of anything proves nothing.

Two useful sites:

Factchecker:

http://www.factcheck.org/

Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/

qjs

Fact checking, having a degree of critical reasoning, etc. are all good, but fake news succeeds because it says something you really want to be true. It may not be the specific (fake) events reported, but certain it appeals to the underlying worldview/deeply-held beliefs. That's the hardest part to fight. It's confirmation bias and more. Seeing the fake news disproved can feel like your worldview is getting attacked. That's why many people double down when confronted with fact checking.

To take the example of urine-drinking or unrealistic survival shows, many people (with little or no outdoors experience) believe that survival is about taking desperate, dangerous, physically, and possible mentally revolting exhausting measures. Common-sensical stuff like "stop, collect yourself, check the map that you've obviously brought with you" just doesn't make as deep of an impression as rappelling down the side of a mountain or, yes, drinking your own urine. This is a sort of confirmation bias at work.

Similarly, many think about fighting off the "bad guys" when it comes to survival. That's why some internet discussions about survival center around caliber and firearm choice. Some people have a bug out list that has like 40 lbs of firearms and ammo and an insufficient amount of food and water. Again, this sort of stuff responds to something psychological.

Alright, so these survival examples aren't as good as political ones, but we don't talk about politics here. Developing the ability to effectively assess and process information that contradicts the way you look at things is incredibly valuable. Most people don't have it, and we end up with more urine in the news than is decent for civilized company.

This is something overlooked in schools and colleges. Logic has a structure that needs to be taught. Also, there are many logical fallacies that people should be aware of. I see logical fallacies being used very frequently in reporting and opinion pieces---and I feel that the people using them are totally unaware that they are using them. Wikipedia has a good list---I bet that even in a quick scan of the list will reveal several that you have seen or heard recently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Shouldn't logical reasoning be part and parcel of education in general, at all levels? I thought it used to be....