In our society, we are barraged by "information," some credible, some not so credible. In research, information is the key commodity. The most frequent question I am asked is, "How do you know what's 'true'?" First, people tend to confuse "truth" with "opinion." Whenever information is shared that people don't like, their normal response is to say, "Yes, but I read something that said just the opposite!" With so much competition for attention, how can we trust the veracity of any claim?

Here are seven "suggestions" (I would say rules, but that sounds too pushy) to keep in mind when encountering new information:

1. There is no such thing as unbiased information. The moment someone shares information, it is being used for a particular purpose. Take a moment to ask, "What does the provider of this information expect me to do with it?"


2. Trust what you agree with less than that with which you disagree. Most of us filter out what we don't like and latch onto what makes sense to us. Our own personal bias intrudes. Don't dismiss ideas you don't like as "lacking a factual basis," and don't assume a sound base simply because you agree. Understand which side of an issue is presented, and be fair in assessing opposing views.


3. Look for footnotes. Granted, a footnote doesn't prove anything, but the use of footnotes indicates that there are supplemental sources upon which an idea is based. Be suspicious of any work of non-fiction lacking footnotes. Research institutes use footnotes as a first line of fact checking. When footnotes are used well, they lend credibility to any argument. But . . .


4. Fact-check footnotes. If you find information that is persuasive or that you wish to quote yourself, then look up the primary source mentioned in the footnote. Not all footnotes are accurate. Ann Coulter filled her book, Treason, with footnotes, but later got in trouble because the majority of them were found to be erroneous. In her most recent book, How to Talk to a Liberal, she mended the problem by not using any footnotes at all.


5. Watch for confusion between "quotes" and "paraphrases." It is poor practice to misquote, or nearly quote, information in a way that makes your point, but isn't completely honest. Al Franken (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) employs this tactic in his criticisms of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Hence,


6. Understand the context. Just as with the Bible, don't quote (or paraphrase) out of context. An author generally makes a claim in defense of a larger argument. When a single line or a part of a line is cited, it often distorts the original intention.


7. Demand a two-source minimum. If only one source exists to support a claim, leave it alone. Every author is entitled to an opinion, but much that we believe is factual is nothing more than a writer or pundit's point-of-view. Love him or hate him — label him a propagandist — Michael Moore scores very high in veracity claims because of the number of supporting opinions from all sides he is able to cite. It's one of the reasons he simply won't go away — no one has yet credibly refuted his stuff.

Posted 11-11-04