Recently I started reading a series of articles from The Associated Press entitled Not Real News: A Look At What Didn’t Happen This Week. There was a time when purveyors of “creative news” were never taken seriously. Tabloids such as TheNational Enquirer were read for humor and entertainment not for serious news. I fondly remember the “Bat Boy Found In West Virginia Cave” published with genuine drawings (who can dispute that?).
With the advent of the Internet all of that has changed. We no longer seem to be able to differentiate between real news, satire, humor, and just plain bull shit. It has become necessary for reputable news organizations to attempt to debunk the more outrageous claims that circulate under the guise of news.
Everyone is familiar with the now common place phrase “fake news”. It is generally used in an attempt to discredit a news story. But do we ask ourselves, is the story is factually incorrect or is it just something with which we disagree?
Rather than causing a reflex response, either in agreement or disagreement, the label should get us thinking. What makes it fake? What are the facts behind the story? Do we trust the reporting, or the person making the claim and how have we arrived at that conclusion? We should use this as an opportunity to think critically about the news and the people involved.
Numerous studies have shown the Internet to be a vast reservoir of misinformation, incomplete data, and downright fabrication. This would not be a problem if the same studies did not also show the more outrageous or unlikely the claims on the Internet, the more likely they are to be shared.
Why is this? Studies have been done about how and why people share Internet data. The most common reason is that they think that their friends would find them to be interesting, fun or just plain crazy. One problem with this is people are more likely to give credence to information on websites shared by friends.
So, what this means is: I read something on a website that I think is just outrageous and I sent it to you because I think you will get a laugh. Because you think that I’m a reasonable person and respect my opinion, you believe that I accept it as true. Therefore, you are more likely to accept it as true. This leads to a cascade a false information entering common perception.
A large part of this is due to the breakdown of critical thinking in our society as a whole. So just what is critical thinking? According to a commonly accepted definition:
“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”
OK, this is a long-winded way of saying think for yourself. Before you forward any outrageous, funny or just plain crazy website or email to friends be sure and let them know your opinion about it. If you’re forwarding it just because you think it’s crazy, tell them that. They’ll be less likely to accept it as your opinion and less likely to adopt it as their own. We all need to be responsible for what we do or don’t accept. Unfortunately, we also must accept responsibility for passing on false information to friends who may accept it based on what they think is our recommendation.
Is it true or is it false? You need to decide that for yourself. But don’t fall into the trap of just accepting everything that shows up in your inbox as being truthful. Make the effort and take the time to look for the truth behind the headline. And that includes this post as well.
The most reliable method is to evaluate the source. Is it an acknowledged expert or organization? If it relates to scientific information, does it contain verifiable data or reference to published, peer reviewed studies? If it is opinion, is it clearly labeled as such?
One final piece of advice for evaluating Internet information; be very suspicious of anything from an anonymous source or from a site attributed to a group with a vague name such as The Institute for the Advancement of My Opinion. It is likely that the institute is located in his parents’ basement. Finally, always be suspicious about anything that begins: “The Truth About….”. You’re unlikely to find much truth there.
So, to end this post, The Grumpy Doc says think for yourself, know what you believe, and you won’t go wrong. (Unless, of course, you disagree with The Grumpy Doc.)
We have become a society consumed by the concept of fairness. Things of which we disapprove or perceive to be to our disadvantage are unfair. Things we perceive as being to our advantage or of which we approve are fair. What is fair to me may be unfair to you and vice versa. I’ve given a lot of thought to this whole concept of fairness and in many ways have struggled with an answer that satisfies me.
The first time I really started thinking about it was when my children were young. They frequently declared that things were unfair. Of course, these were generally things they didn’t like, such as dad telling them they couldn’t go certain places or do certain things. They could never explain what they meant by not fair other than they didn’t like it. But in their defense no one else seems to be able to adequately describe it either.
Denouncing something as unfair has become a socially acceptable way of saying “I don’t like it.” It seems to say that fairness has some intrinsic value like good or evil. These are two other concepts which also are difficult to explain but have a more intuitive meaning than fairness. Is it fair that one person works harder than another and so makes more money? Is it fair that one person was born with musical ability? Is it fair that another person is born with natural athletic talents? (If it were up to me, I’d say it is unfair since I have neither musical nor athletic ability.)
For many, the natural inequities of life create a perceived issue of fairness or unfairness. The beneficiaries of natural gifts will of course consider it fair that they are able to benefit from those gifts. Those who perceive themselves without such gifts will deem it unfair and ask for special considerations to allow them to be equal with those they consider more advantaged.
So, what is The Grumpy Doc’s opinion about fairness. Well, I’ll tell you what I told my kids. There is no absolute fairness. You cannot define fairness to the satisfaction of all people. Things are the way they are. If you don’t like them, work hard to change them. If you do like things, work hard to keep them the same.
If there is any fairness, it is that we should all have an equal opportunity to work for the things that we want. That doesn’t mean we all start from the same place and those who have been disadvantaged by society in the past must be give equal opportunity with consideration of past inequalities. To those who say they have never benefitted from special consideration: “What’s your golf handicap?”
Do I know how to achieve these things? Sadly, no. That is for people smarter than me. Do I consider it unfair that there are people smarter than me? No, I’m glad. If The Grumpy Doc were the smartest guy around, we would all be in trouble.
Margie and I have just returned from a trip to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the most important day in my life. The day we were married.
I give thanks every day that I found Margie and she agreed to be my wife. Everything that I am or ever will be or could ever want to be is thanks to her.
She is the guiding light of my life and fills it with joy. I give thanks to God for the 50 wonderful years that we have had together and for every day that continues.
Our 50th anniversary is not just a day. For us, it’s a year-long celebration of our love. Every day we are thankful for our family and our friends who have made it all so special to us. You’ll never know how much you mean to us.
We all have an idea of what life was like for our 18th century ancestors: no electricity, no running water or indoor plumbing, no central heat, no telephone or computers, no rapid transportation. But try to imagine what medicine was like under these conditions. Most things that we take for granted as a routine part of our medical care did not yet exist. There were no X-rays, no lab tests, no EKGs, no antibiotics and no concept of sterile procedure or anesthesia. Surgery was a painful and often fatal process.
In many ways, medicine was more of a trade than a profession. There were only two medical schools in 18th century America. The Philadelphia Medical College was founded in 1765 and Kings College Medical College in New York two years later. Most physician and surgeons (chirurgiens as it was spelled at the time) who had formal training received it in Europe. By far, most physicians received their training by a one-to-three-year apprenticeship in the office of an established physician. Others, particularly on the frontier, simply declared themselves physicians and set up practice. In some remote areas, surgery was performed by the local barber or butcher because they had the tools.
The first medical society was formed in Boston in 1735. By the mid-1700s most colonies required a medical license of some form. In many colonies the medical license was little more than a business tax with few, if any, enforceable professional standards. The first hospital in the colonies was founded in Philadelphia in 1751 by a group that included Benjamin Franklin.
In 1775 there were an estimated 3000 physicians practicing in the colonies. Fewer than 300 had a medical degree or a certificate from a formal apprenticeship. Early attempts at licensing were resisted as an attempt to place a monopoly on medicine. Massachusetts was the first colony to attempt regulation by issuing a certificate of proficiency for completion of an approved apprenticeship. But even in Massachusetts, as notable a physician as Benjamin Rush reported that the only prerequisite for “…. a doctor’s boy (apprentice) is the ability to stand the sight of blood”.
While modern concepts of disease and sanitation were beginning to evolve in the late 18th century, many practitioners still ascribed to the almost 1000-year-old ideas of the Greek physician Galan. He believed that the body had four humors: blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. Good health required a balance of the humors and illness resulted from their imbalance. Attempts to restore balance included bleeding, purging, diuretics and laxatives, and placing heated cups on the back to form blisters and draw out the humors. It was this belief that led to the bleeding that hastened George Washington’s death. Quite literally, the cure was worse than the disease.
The physicians of the time had few effective medicines and often acted as their own apothecary, compounding medications of spices, herbs, flowers, bark, mercury, alcohol, or tar. Opium elixir was marketed to help babies sleep through the night. Mercury was used to treat everything from syphilis to scabies. Voltaire summed up the state of pharmacology when he said “…. a physician is one who pours drugs of which he knows little into a body of which he knows less.”
Disease and hardship were a fact of life in the colonies. One in eight women died in childbirth or from complications of pregnancy. One in ten children died before the age of five. Diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, typhus and measles ravaged many communities. They were especially deadly for American Indians.
Smallpox was perhaps the deadliest disease of the colonial period. Entire American Indian tribes were annihilated. Epidemics repeatedly swept through the colonies in the 1700s killing thousands. George III became King of England in part because of smallpox. The last Stewart claimant to the throne died of the disease and England looked to the House of Hanover for the German born King George I.
Inoculations against smallpox had been widespread in Africa and in Arab countries for many years. In the American colonies inoculation was denounced as barbarian and some clergy preached that it was thwarting God’s will. Despite the support of such notables as Cotton Mather and Benjamin Franklin, inoculation against the disease was not widespread until George Washington, seeing the debilitating effect of smallpox on the Continental Army, ordered massive inoculation of all troops.
Disease and poor hygiene were the greatest foes faced by the army. John Adams reported that for every soldier killed in battle, ten died from disease. On July 25, 1775, the Continental Army Medical Corps was formed. Initially, each regiment was required to provide its own surgeon and there were no established qualifications. Only Massachusetts required examination of regimental surgeons and many colonies did not provide the surgeons with a military rank. To make matters worse, the first director general of the army medical corps, Dr. Benjamin Church, was a British spy.
Modern ideas of sanitation were unknown to most colonists. Few people bathed because they believed it removed the body’s protective coating. Most soldiers had only a single set of clothes in which they also slept and almost never washed. Army camps were hot beds of flux (dysentery) and camp fever (typhoid and typhus, the distinction between them was unknown). Camp fever took a huge toll on the army because it left the survivors so debilitated that they required almost constant care and seldom returned to duty.
Sanitation consumed a large part of General Washington’s time at Valley Forge. Latrines, garbage disposal and animal manure were constant problems. Attempts to prevent and treat the itch (scabies) were relentless. At times, several hundred soldiers would be unfit for duty due to infestation. What little clothing and blankets they did have often had to be burned to prevent the spread of the parasite.
Conditions in army hospitals were not much better and could be far worse. Camp fever spread rapidly through the close confines, often killing entire wards, including the staff. Death rates could run as high as 25% in hospitals and many soldiers preferred to remain in camp where they felt they had a better chance of survival. Dr Benjamin Rush stated “Hospitals are the sinks of human life. They robbed the United States of more citizens than the sword.”
The French, as with many things during the revolution, aided the patriots with their health problems. Dr. Jean Francois Coste, chief medical officer of the French Expeditionary Force, was one of the first to introduce strict regulations concerning sanitation and hygiene in army camps. The Americans, noting the significantly better health of their allies, were quick to follow suit.
The revolution was always close to failure. It was made even closer by widespread disease. But as with everything, our patriot ancestors persisted and triumphed.
This post was adapted from my article published in The SAR Magazine, Fall 2020, Sons of the American Revolution.
Sources:
Colonial Society of Massachusetts. Medicine In Colonial Massachusetts 1620-1820. Boston, MA, 1980
Miller, Christine. A Guide to 18th Century Military Medicine in Colonial America, Self-Published,Lexington, KY, 2016.
Reiss, Oscar, MD. Medicine and the American Revolution; How Diseases and their Treatments Affected the Colonial Army. McFarland & Co, Jefferson, NC, 1998.
Shryock, Richard. Medicine and Society in America 1660 – 1860. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1960.
Terkel, Susan. Colonial American Medicine. Franklin Watts, NY, 1993.
Wilber, C. Keith, MD. Revolutionary Medicine 1700 -1800. The Globe Pequot Press, Guilford CN, 1980.
I find it interesting that things take on more importance in retrospect than they had at the time. I grew up in West Virginia and I left the state when I was 19 and spent the next 21 years living in other parts of the country.
We moved back to West Virginia when I was accepted in medical school at Marshall. I found it interesting to discover that things I really didn’t remember as being part of the culture had somehow become iconic.
What most surprised me was brown beans and cornbread. Schools and churches had brown beans and cornbread suppers to raise funds. This was supposedly a West Virginia tradition. Unfortunately for me I really don’t remember it.
I know we had cornbread and probably had brown beans. I don’t remember them being linked together as the “classic” Appalachian dinner. Although I must say it has become one of my favorite meals and I regret all those years I missed out on enjoying it.
This got me to thinking how many things that we consider traditional or “American” have only become so from the vantage point of looking backward. Nostalgia minimizes faults and amplifies virtues.
Many things that were not so important at the time have become set in stone as an important part of our heritage. For example, collectors now pay a fortune for old toys that are considered to somehow represent a special bygone era. However, at the time, they were just toys. They were played with and discarded when the kids lost interest in them. Who has not said at one time or another, “I wish I still had my”, you fill in the blank here, be it the original Barbie doll, baseball cards or Star Trek toys.
Speaking of Star Trek, let’s look at the series. I’m sure this is where The Grumpy Doc may upset some people.
When you consider the entertainment dynasty that arose from the original Star Trek series it is hard to believe that it only lasted three seasons. It was initially cancelled after the second season and brought back for an additional season only after an aggressive letter writing campaign by fans.
If you look at the old shows, the stories were simplistic, the special effects were rudimentary, and the acting was over the top. Especially Captain Kirk, who could always find it within himself to over act in any scene. Yet somehow, after many movies and numerous spinoff series, we have come to regard this initial run as classic television. I will admit they made moral points on many episodes, but these were often heavy handed and in-your-face moralizing.
When we think of Great American literature one of the books we think of is The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. At the time of its initial release, it sold poorly. When Fitzgerald died, he considered himself to be a failure as a writer. It wasn’t until World War II when The Great Gatsby was one of the books printed and distributed to the troops, that it became popular. He is now considered an American icon and rightly so.
The same thing happens to politicians. These are people that we know and revere as great Americans and who have been subjected to near deification. These are people literally carved in stone, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln. From the perspective of many years, we have come to believe that these men were universally loved, admired, and respected. However, during their lifetime they had many political and personal enemies who criticized them at great length and all three suffered through periods of declining popularity.
In future posts I’m going to discuss each of them in turn and look at how they were perceived during their lifetime as compared to how we perceive them now. Each deserves separate attention. Despite their flaws, each was vitally important to the America that we now know.
Equally as interesting are things that were once popular or considered important and are now almost completely unknown. I will be addressing those in a future post as well.
One thing I will warn you about now, I have a great interest in historical trivia. The Grumpy Doc is really trying to understand how perceptions of previous generations have shaped current opinions about many aspects of society. I will be sharing many of my thoughts on these issues.
First of all, let me say I’m a wine aficionado. For those of you not into wine you can translate that as, “wine snob”. Yes, I talk about things like tannins, complexity, aging, and many other esoterica. Wine aficionados (my brother Glenn and I in particular) truly enjoy discussing flavors and aromas and finish. (Just ask our wives.)
I know that a lot of people only recognize two types of wine, good wine, and bad wine. I can’t deny that is the true bottom line of wine appreciation. It’s where everyone starts, and you really don’t need to go any further to enjoy wine.
Having said that, those of us who consider ourselves to be “experts” on wine disagree greatly about one thing and that is the significance of wine glasses. Many people make a concerted effort to have the proper wine glass for the proper wine. They discuss the importance of the design of the glass for collecting the aroma and for allowing you to “swirl” the wine so that the aromatics can be released for appreciation. They talk about how the shape of the rim of the glass affects the way the wine is presented to the tongue.
For those who genuinely appreciate these subtleties, I envy you. I have never been able to tell the difference in the flavor or the aroma of wines based on the type of glass. It may be that I’m not as much of an expert as I’d like to think. That’s always a possibility. (Don’t tell anyone I admitted that. The first rule of wine snobbery is that you are never wrong.)
When we visited Italy, we found that most restaurants where locals dined served wine in glasses that can best be described as juice glasses. Only in the restaurants frequented by tourists did we find stemmed glassware. I think Italians know a thing or two about wine.
My thoughts on wine glasses are not shared by many of my friends, whose opinions I respect. I believe that good wine is good in any glass and bad wine is bad in any glass. I will make an exception here. You should never drink any wine, even bad wine, from a styrofoam cup.
If you drink good wine out of a water glass it will still taste really good. If you drink bad wine in an expensive and appropriately shaped glass it will not be good.
So, what does The Grumpy Doc say? Well, The Grumpy Doc says; “Enjoy your wine and drink it out of whatever glass you have. If it’s good, you will like it no matter what. But remember, wine is best enjoyed with friends. That, not the glass, is what really makes wine good.”
Memorial Day began to honor those who died in defense of our country. Over time we also recognized the sacrifice of police and fire fighters. Now, in the face of the latest threat to our nation, let us add to the list of honor those in health care, education, and other vital industries whose lives were lost providing for our safety and security. May God bless them and their families.
It’s interesting to think about how the popularity of things changes overtime Sometimes they go in and out of fashion as a matter of preference. Other times it’s because we have learned that things done in the past were not beneficial or were perhaps even harmful. I’m going discuss a couple of those things and then try to wrap it all up with a guess about what may be popular in the future.
The first thing that comes to mind is cigarette smoking. There was a time during my younger days when cigarette smoking was not only acceptable, but it was almost mandatory if you were going to be sophisticated.
As illustrated by the advertisement above doctors were often employed as a vehicle to sell cigarettes. And in fact, I remember a friend telling me he was advised by his doctor to start smoking because it would “exercise his lungs”. (I really hope he misheard that.)
Movie stars all smoked. Check out Turner Classic Movies and look at any film from the 1940s or 1950s. The stars constantly had a cigarette in their hand. I can’t recall a movie with Humphrey Bogart where he wasn’t lighting up. The women were also lighting up. Lauren Bacall looked pretty sexy with a cigarette.
It wasn’t just the movie stars who made us want to smoke. President Franklin Roosevelt smoked, and he used a cigarette holder. He made it look elegant and made a lot of other people want to emulate him. Unfortunately for many who tried, very few could pull off the cigarette holder without looking foolish.
Smoking was also considered to be manly. President Eisenhower, when he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, famously smoked 5 packs of cigarettes a day, all unfiltered. And we could only hope to have looked as cool as James Dean did in Rebel Without a Cause when he lit a cigarette in almost every scene. We certainly can’t forget the Marlboro Man, the rugged cowboy who always had a cigarette in his hand.
When I was in high school, we couldn’t wait to start smoking. We were convinced it would make us look like grownups, and as soon as we were able, we started lighting up. For the most part our parents told us we shouldn’t smoke but since they were smokers themselves that really didn’t carry a lot of weight with us.
But it’s easy to understand why my cigarettes fell out of favor. Health warnings in the early 1960s helped to discourage people from smoking and the widely reported scientific studies linking it to cancer that occurred in the 1970s and 80s further lessened its popularity. Smoking is no longer looked upon as sophisticated or elegant. It is looked upon as deadly.
The popularity of wine is also interesting. In the early 1900s wine was considered the province of the upper classes. It was served at white tie dinners by formally attired butlers. It had an aura of aristocracy. Average people seldom had wine at home.
Prohibition almost destroyed the wine industry in the United States with only a few wineries receiving an exemption for sacramental wine. (It was good to be Catholic during prohibition.) After prohibition, the wine business initially did not recover in the United States. It wasn’t until the 1970s when a few wineries from California started challenging the Europeans that wine started gaining any popularity. We only have to remember that for years the term that was used to refer to a “Skid Row drunk” was wineo. The only people who use that term now are wine aficionados. We use it jokingly to refer to ourselves to try and offset the wine snob image.
Wine has reached an almost cult status now. It’s become not only popular but ubiquitous in any group that considers itself to be “with it”. The craft beer phenomenon is a natural follow on using many of the same terms and rituals. It has also created a new generation of beer snobs.
So, what is next? I wish I could predict. I’d start investing now. Using the principle that what was old will be new, I’m going to take a guess and say that vinyl records will make a comeback. Or is that already happening? Good thing us geezers never get rid of anything.
In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. It was good. The people were pleased.
Political:
In the beginning was the word. The word was changed. The change was revised. The revision was amended. The amendment was edited. The edit was deleted. The deletion was suspended. The suspension was removed. The removal was superseded. It was confusing. The people were not pleased.
Take what you will from the insights of The Grumpy Doc.
Continuing my reminiscences about growing up in West Virginia I’m going to visit the subject of ramps. For those of you who haven’t been blessed to live in Appalachia, ramps are a type of wild leek in the onion family. They have a very pungent flavor that is like a highly garlicky, sulfureous onion. They have a short season in the spring and are highly prized by those who enjoy them.
If you think politics can be contentious, you haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen the disagreements about ramps. You either hate ramps or you love ramps. There is no middle ground and almost no one is neutral on the subject.
Those unfamiliar with ramps might think, “If you don’t like them, just don’t eat them.” Well, it’s just not that simple. If you think garlic or onions can give you bad breath, just standby.
Ramps may give you the harshest breath that you’ve ever experienced. But that’s not the worst part. The odor of ramps will radiate from your body for several days. Despite much folklore about the best ways to rid your body of the odor, the only thing that works is the passage of time.
I can remember many years ago when I was in school, kids who would eat too many ramps sometimes would be sent home because the odor was just too much to bear in a closed classroom. There were times when I thought eating ramps might be worth it if I got a day off school. Ultimately, I decided maybe school wasn’t so bad.
The spring of my senior year in high school a buddy and I decided to go to Richwood for the annual ramp festival. Richwood sits in a river valley and as we started down the hill, we could see a haze hanging over the town. As we got closer to the festival site I was almost driven back. I grew up in a town with several chemical plants so I thought I was used to bad odors in the air, but was I ever wrong. The only thing that kept us going was free beer. We had both just turned 18 and could legally drink.
Even the federal government has declared ramps to be a public nuisance. The editor of the Richwood weekly newspaper once mixed ramp juice with the ink for a special edition. The smell was so bad the post office refused to deliver the paper and destroyed all the copies in its possession.
People who love ramps talk about the many ways to cook them. In the spring in West Virginia restaurants seem to compete for new ways to prepare ramps during the few weeks they are available. They have ramp burgers, ramp pimento cheese, ramp jelly and ramp omelets. There has even been the misguided ramp infused wine. It seems to me that most recipes involve ways to disguise the flavor of ramps.
It’s not just when they’re cooked that they put off an objectionable odor. Even raw they can be hard to deal with. I was out in the country with my brother and his wife when she decided to pick some ramps (leaves only, the bulb is left to grow next year’s crop). Let me say I was glad we drove out separately. He said it was at least three days before the smell of ramps was cleared from the car. He joked that while ramps may not be grounds for divorce, they certainly could be grounds for temporary separation.
If you love ramps, I hope you enjoy them. Just make sure everyone else has enough warning to avoid you during ramp season. And that is The Grumpy Doc’s opinion about ramps. Be sure and leave a comment with yours.
Fake News
By John Turley
On July 24, 2021
In Commentary
Fake News
Recently I started reading a series of articles from The Associated Press entitled Not Real News: A Look At What Didn’t Happen This Week. There was a time when purveyors of “creative news” were never taken seriously. Tabloids such as The National Enquirer were read for humor and entertainment not for serious news. I fondly remember the “Bat Boy Found In West Virginia Cave” published with genuine drawings (who can dispute that?).
With the advent of the Internet all of that has changed. We no longer seem to be able to differentiate between real news, satire, humor, and just plain bull shit. It has become necessary for reputable news organizations to attempt to debunk the more outrageous claims that circulate under the guise of news.
Everyone is familiar with the now common place phrase “fake news”. It is generally used in an attempt to discredit a news story. But do we ask ourselves, is the story is factually incorrect or is it just something with which we disagree?
Rather than causing a reflex response, either in agreement or disagreement, the label should get us thinking. What makes it fake? What are the facts behind the story? Do we trust the reporting, or the person making the claim and how have we arrived at that conclusion? We should use this as an opportunity to think critically about the news and the people involved.
Numerous studies have shown the Internet to be a vast reservoir of misinformation, incomplete data, and downright fabrication. This would not be a problem if the same studies did not also show the more outrageous or unlikely the claims on the Internet, the more likely they are to be shared.
Why is this? Studies have been done about how and why people share Internet data. The most common reason is that they think that their friends would find them to be interesting, fun or just plain crazy. One problem with this is people are more likely to give credence to information on websites shared by friends.
So, what this means is: I read something on a website that I think is just outrageous and I sent it to you because I think you will get a laugh. Because you think that I’m a reasonable person and respect my opinion, you believe that I accept it as true. Therefore, you are more likely to accept it as true. This leads to a cascade a false information entering common perception.
A large part of this is due to the breakdown of critical thinking in our society as a whole. So just what is critical thinking? According to a commonly accepted definition:
“Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”
OK, this is a long-winded way of saying think for yourself. Before you forward any outrageous, funny or just plain crazy website or email to friends be sure and let them know your opinion about it. If you’re forwarding it just because you think it’s crazy, tell them that. They’ll be less likely to accept it as your opinion and less likely to adopt it as their own. We all need to be responsible for what we do or don’t accept. Unfortunately, we also must accept responsibility for passing on false information to friends who may accept it based on what they think is our recommendation.
Is it true or is it false? You need to decide that for yourself. But don’t fall into the trap of just accepting everything that shows up in your inbox as being truthful. Make the effort and take the time to look for the truth behind the headline. And that includes this post as well.
The most reliable method is to evaluate the source. Is it an acknowledged expert or organization? If it relates to scientific information, does it contain verifiable data or reference to published, peer reviewed studies? If it is opinion, is it clearly labeled as such?
One final piece of advice for evaluating Internet information; be very suspicious of anything from an anonymous source or from a site attributed to a group with a vague name such as The Institute for the Advancement of My Opinion. It is likely that the institute is located in his parents’ basement. Finally, always be suspicious about anything that begins: “The Truth About….”. You’re unlikely to find much truth there.
So, to end this post, The Grumpy Doc says think for yourself, know what you believe, and you won’t go wrong. (Unless, of course, you disagree with The Grumpy Doc.)