Originally Posted By: Russ
The problem with this course will be having an instructor who can teach how to determine fact without imposing "what" is a fact. One of my pet peeves is presumptuousness by people who think they know something but don't. A presumptuousness of people who think something is settled and ...this is going political right here so I'll stop.


Actually. Checking things against a predetermined list of "facts" is closer to dogma than critical thinking. Let me give you an example:

"According to a study" First of all, what exact study? Run it down. Is the study relevant to the article ? Was it rigorous or was it pseudoscience advertising. The same reasoning can also be applied to "they said","this happened", etc. Is it independently verifiable? Is it relevant? What was the context in which it was said or happened?

Another technique is to run down the original source . For example, news site XYZ is qquoting news site IJK. Where is IJK located? An IP address in the Balkans or the Former Soviet Republics for an "American" news service is going to be suspect. A post on social media, or a site with an obvious spin, isn't worth much either.
_________________________
Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane