Thinking Critically About Information

by John Elfrank-Dana
Murry Bergtraum High School

Rule 1: All information is suspect!  

Regardless if it's in print, on the web, from a major university, corporation, your teacher our our government.  Why?  Objectivity may be impossible.  Philosophers have grappled with the issue of "truth" for centuries.  Some scientists claim to be "objective" in their presentation of the facts, yet there can be realms of prejudice they cannot see.  Many perceptions are shaped by things out of our control; like our age, race, socio/economic status.  There are numerous ways to be compromised.

History is especially vulnerable to the biases of its authors.  Historical records are usually written by "the winners;" those of a social group that are at the top of society.  Privileged elites that work in universities who see things from the vantage point of their class, race and sex.  Because historians cannot report all the facts, they must make decisions about what to report.  These decisions about what's important are premised on the values system of the individual historian.  Values are subjective (meaning they are a matter of individual preference and rooted in emotion).

How To View Web-Based Information With a Critical Lens

Since the "Truth" is a very illusive thing, let's take a mitigated approach.

1. Check to see if the page/site has the following:

a. Notation of the author or organization that produced the material

b. Contact information so that you may communicate with the parties responsible for the material

c. Notation of when the page was last updated.  This is especially important because of the dynamic nature of the web (information can be altered easily and is not static like in books or other traditional media)

I consider the above three criteria a minimum for any credible source of information.  By "credible" I mean verifiable.  That fact that you can inquire further about the information is important. The following two add the the page's credibility and make it a more valuable source of information.  They are:

d. Citation of where the author got his/her information.  We call these footnotes or endnotes. This allows you to check the sources directly and ask questions about its accuracy.

e. Evidence of peer review. "Peer review" means that others in the author's field of study (in our case other historians, economists and/or political scientists) have reviewed and criticized the work.  You won't find this too often except in scholarly journals. It's prevalent on www.Wikipedia.org, where you will see disputes rage all the time. However, you may not use Wikipedia as a source in a paper or project. However, you may use it to get an overview on a subject and check out and use the credible sources it has used (listed below).

If the information meets all five of the criteria above it may still be just a bunch of "bunk" (misinformation, lies).  This is where the arbiter of "truth" comes in to play.  That's you!  You have to weigh the arguments on their own merits. It makes no difference if the author is a professor at Harvard or a Civil War enthusiast who works as a mechanic during the day.  The rules of logic dictate that the truth is independent of social status. 

History, politics and economics are very much "politicized" subjects.  Since what is written about the past can lend legitimacy to social orders, history has been used as a form of propaganda (information meant to persuade) by groups of individuals to justify their status or call for change.  Noam Chomsky, one of the greatest intellects of the twentieth century (in my opinion) noted how when he would speak on issues outside his field like mathematics the only concern was for the merits of his arguments.  However, when he spoke on social and historical issues like the Middle East, there were often cries of "what credentials do you have to speak about this!"  Logic is often thrown out when political subjects are addressed. 

Hence, the burden is on you to find the truth. 

2. Know what kind of site it is:

.com = commercial site, .gov = government site, .org = not-for-profit, .edu = university site (.edu sites are more likely to have peer reviewed material).

Blogs are different from typical web sites in that they are used as forums for political opinions.

There a number of questions you can ask yourself about information you find.

1. Might the author have a vested interest other than reporting what they think is the truth?  For example: A major soup company might claim in their study that salt does not contribute to high blood pressure.  Or, the KKK might argue that social rank is determined my genetics and not environmental factors, thus supporting their broader agenda of racial superiority for whites.  In this case it's important to remember that "believing is seeing."  If you believe something then you may tend to see only that information that supports your belief.  

2. Is the argument or view point consistent with what you already know about the issue/subject?  Can the argument be improved? If not, you might want to ask more questions.  Perhaps you need to re-examine what you already know.

3. Are there alternative sources of information?  It's a safe bet that for any historical event there are more then one viewpoint.  You should find at least two.  Remember that some viewpoints might be inaccessible simply because those that hold the views have no access to the media or other means of getting the word out.  Certainly, Americans throughout most of the Vietnam War never herd the view of the South Vietnamese opposed to the U.S. invasion.  Another question you can ask is that if the argument be improved.

As you can see, thinking critically involves a lot of effort. In the end it's up to you to determine if you should believe the information you are reading.  You will have to pull all of the information together, compare it to other information, and use your logical abilities to arrive at that judgment. 

Source Evaluation Rubric: Use this tool to help you assess the credibility of a source.

*Again, just because the site is "credible" doesn't mean you can trust the information as being the "truth".

Here is another viewpoint on critical thinking.

Roger Darlington: http://www.rogerdarlington.co.uk/thinking.html

Date this page was last updated: 01/04/2010

copyright © 2005, John Elfrank-Dana
Feel free to copy and use, for educational and non-commercial purposes only, the teacher-original material on this site. Please credit the source as: http://www.elfrank.com . Contact John Elfrank-Dana for clearance on use of student produced material.