Readings+-+Jackson+and+Jamieson,+chapter+8+and+conclusion


 * Summary of Jackson and Jamieson; UnSpun Chapter 08: Was Clarence Darrow a Creationist?**

The Rule "you can't be certain enough" is true, you can never be certain on what you are reading if it is the truth or if it is a lie, this reading was giving a point for us to know that we can not believe everything we read because we don't know what or we can trust can not trust. By that matter you can't even trust people who are saying the things or asking you what you think about something and possibly going to use it in an article, the first thing they will do is put a spin on it and twist up your words to make it sound that much more interesting so it will catch the readers eye. You need to look more into the topic and find evidence that it is true. That's all it really is trying to say is know how and what to use as resources and know what you are talking about when you write it.

In this chapter of UnSpun Jackson and Jamieson stress the importance of checking the sources of articles we read so that we’re not relying on false information. They give the example of creationists who confidently use a quote supposedly made by Clarence Darrow; which was later found to be falsely stated by journalist Griggs. McIver was responsible for finding this falsity by tracing back several stories to Griggs’s original quote made in 1974, which was around fifty years after the supposed remark was made by Darrow. McIver thinks that the quote was accepted because people wanted to believe in it, so they took it as true for many years.

Jackson and Jamieson give a list of rules that aid in checking if an article, story, etc. is credible. The first rule being, “you can’t be //completely// certain” (Jackson and Jamieson 156). You should be skeptical of information that claims to be absolute, if it says “always” or “never,” it probably isn’t so. They use a quote by a philosopher, Karl Popper, which explains that even the laws of science are “subject to being disproved someday” (156) because they are hypothetical. An example he gives is that we all believe that swans are white, because we have all only seen white swans, but there are black swans in Australia so information we all hold our whole lives can be proven wrong after just one exception. His point is to prove that any information we hold, weather we have it for 20 years or it is accepted by society as fact for over 2,000 years can be proven wrong at any time, after one event.

The second rule is “you //can// be certain //enough//” (157), which means that you can never be absolutely or entirely certain about something, but it is possible to be certain enough to find something “true”. They give the example of O.J. Simpson’s trial and how two different juries unanimously voted a not-guilty verdict in Los Angeles and a guilty verdict in Santa Monica. The first jury was certain enough that he was innocent but the second jury found that they were certain enough that he was guilty because of the evidence shown to them.

The third rule that Jackson and Jamieson provide is “look for general agreement among experts” (159). The authors state that “we can be much more confident that we are getting the facts right when we start with what’s widely accepted by authorities on all sides” (159). When statistics are accepted by more than one major political party or by the majority of the public, it will usually be found true. But Jackson and Jamieson caution that this isn’t always true and give the example of Galileo. He argued against the wide belief that Aristotelian physics was correct and proved them false.

The fourth rule is to “check primary sources” (160) of everything because information can get mis-worded or changed as it is passed from person to person or article to article. They explain that it’s like the game telephone where the message starts out one way and by the time it gets to the end of the line it is hardly recognizable to the original statement. They also explain that that’s why courts won’t consider “hearsay” as evidence in the courtroom.

Rule number five is to “know what counts” (162) which means that you should check what the numbers are actually counting and if they are skewed or even accurate. For example, when President Bush stated that he had “reduced the growth of nonsecurity discretionary spending” (163) but neglected to mention the growth of federal spending, which had increased a significant amount. He was only counting what made him look good and didn’t mention the information that might have made him look bad.

The sixth rule that Jackson and Jamieson talk about it to “know who’s talking” (164). The authors explain that the person writing the article might have a hidden agenda, such as the people who wrote that people should be tested to see if Aspirin would work for them or if they needed the more expensive substitute. The people writing this had ties to the people who ran the tests and manufactured the alternative medicine, which is a conflict of interest.

Rule number seven states that “seeing shouldn’t necessarily be believing” (166). People can be coerced into seeing something that isn’t true as shown in the study done by Solomon Asch. He asked a group of students to tell him which length of rope was shorter or longer. Only one person in the group was a test subject, and the rest had been instructed to choose false answers. The test subject would often say what the rest of the group said even though it was false. Also, memory is subjective; as time passes memories can change to benefit a person. The 8th rule is to “cross-check everything that matters” (168). Check other newspapers, books, magazines, etc. that generally have differing viewpoints and see if the important facts (not opinions) are similar. Reading differing opinions about the same event can bring about a well-rounded view about what really happened, however.

Jackson and Jamieson also give tips on what types of statements can be considered truer than others. Ones that are considered to hold more weight and are considered truer are sworn testimony; confessions; peer-reviewed statements; if the author tells you where the information came from (transparency); and convergent evidence. Ones that are considered more often to be false are statements made in self-interest; and precise evidence isn’t always true evidence.

The final rule that Jackson and Jamieson give us is to “be skeptical, but not cynical” (175). You should look for evidence that it true and use all the other rules to determine whether or not an article, book, etc. is true; but don’t assume that everything you read or see or hear is false. Jackson and Jamieson use the example of Kevin Trudeau and his magical, New York Times best-selling book: //Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You to Know About.// The authors explain that Trudeau hopes that people will accept his story as true (cynically) and not check the facts. By being skeptical of this cure-all book you can discover that most of what he says is false. Jackson and Jamieson explain that after an internet search about Trudeau you can discover that he has a criminal past (convicted felon) and has been accused and found in contempt of court for false advertising.

**Thoughts on Jackson and Jamieson; UnSpun: Chapter 8**
====I believe the authors presented very useful techniques for checking the validity of certain facts and sources. Many of the “rules” they explained are broken, daily, by people reading, hearing about, or looking for news. For example, many people will believe without question, facts they have heard from a second-hand or third-hand source rather than looking it up and checking the primary source themselves. Instances like this occur frequently today on major social networks, such as twitter and facebook. There are, obviously, a wide variety of rules we should try to incorporate into our routine of checking credibility, but I think one of the most important rules Jackson and Jamieson described was to “be skeptical, but not cynical.” While there is plenty of faulty information and misleading facts floating around, there is also a good number that are true and can be trusted. We have to learn to do thorough research ourselves rather than assuming all facts are incorrect, or even worse, believing what everyone tells us.====

I think I took a lot in from the rule of "being skeptical, but not cynical." Too many people are not informed on news, and I often hear some say that they refuse to watch or read news because it is "misleading." True, this is the case with many sources, but it is ridiculous to shut out from what is going on in the world because of this. I think people become cynical by hearing the biased news sources talk so negatively about how ignorant or horrible those with different ideologies or party affiliations are. It makes the viewer feel powerless against all that is happening. But instead of becoming apathetic, this should make viewers objective. If they're skeptical they must dig deeper into the news and find out what is right, because being uniformed about news is no better than being mislead by news.