JS Tip 504: Reality Check III: Credibility Demands Reliable Sources

For two weeks now, we’ve been talking about separating—as best as we can—the true from the false.

Two weeks ago, we talked about the need for specifics. 

Last week, we talked about the need for examination. 

This week, we’ll talk about the relative quality of sources, of evidence. This will be our last tip in the series.  

“Who should I believe? You or my lyin’ eyes?” 

Earlier, we said claims demand specific support.  

Okay. When someone gives you specifics, consider the source for those specifics: 

• Is this first-hand knowledge? Did they experience this themselves? Are they reliable witnesses? Weigh their accounts with your experience (but respect their experience may be—validly—different from yours).

• Are these primary sources? Primary sources come from a participant or an observer at the time of the event: witness statements, letters, diaries. Newspaper accounts may be primary sources if the reporter was on-site and witnessed the event.

• Are these secondary sources? Secondary sources are gathered—written—compiled—from first-hand knowledge and primary sources. They lose credibility because of the distance between the writer and the event. Too much can intervene. Too many rumors fit in this category: “Hey! You know what I heard?”

What are your questions? What are your experiences? Let us know. We love this stuff.