Protect Yourself From Misinformation

[Thesauron]

‘Is the content legitimate news or just a meme?’

 

The truth about conspiracy theories

 

Protect Yourself From Misinformation

 

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=501100022&srcid=share

[Tortuga]

[On the huh]

It made a good point about the spread of misinformation.  We do not want to be someone who spreads falsehoods, even unintentionally.   

Quote

“You must not spread a report that is not true.”—Exodus 23:1.

Remember that the information you share with others has the power to affect their thoughts and actions. Even if you unintentionally pass on wrong information, the consequences can be harmful.

 

[Mykyl]

6 minutes ago, On the huh said:

It made a good point about the spread of misinformation.  We do not want to be someone who spreads falsehoods, even unintentionally.   

 

Yep. Been mentioned numerous times on the forum here recently. 

[On the huh]

The article starts of citing the example of COVID conspiracies.  I wonder if they are concerned that some of the brotherhood are listening to these theories, making bad decisions that could, or have already harmed them.

 

[Tortuga]

Its been my experience that some people justify their thought process by saying "anything is possible" or "it could be true". Personally I think that is dangerous thinking because it acclimates us to accept diluted truths. We need to be in the habit of listening to and sharing truth, not half truths.

[Tortuga]

At this the people said to the serpent: “We may share of the news of the reliable sources of the world.  But God has said about the news of the source that is a conspiracy theory: ‘You must not share it, no, you must not read it; otherwise you will harm yourself and others.’” At this the serpent said to the people: “You certainly will not harm yourself or others." -Genesisish 3:2-4

 

[Tortuga]

The article goes well with our text for today 

 

http://wol.jw.org/wol/finder?dated-material=2021-05-10&wtlocale=E&srctype=JWL1

[EccentricM]

 

"It aaall makes sense my duude, don't you see? It's the lizard men, Clinton, Obama, the Queen of Britian... they're wearing rubber masks my dude, how do you think they live so long?" Don't drink the water, or they'll get you! You can only trust yourself, I've been drinking my own urine for 10 years now, I feel more enlightened than ever dude, take the redpill, the blue pill is in the water! Why do you think the Matrix made it blue dude? Because water is blue! When you don't drink it, your urine goes orange, and that's pretty close to red my dude. Take the side of freedom, down with the lizard men!".

[Susan Cook]

On 5/10/2021 at 2:36 PM, On the huh said:

It made a good point about the spread of misinformation.  We do not want to be someone who spreads falsehoods, even unintentionally.   

 

Agreed.

 

Better to say nothing than say something unsubstantiated and have to apologize for it after.

[trottigy]

This article should be REQUIRED reading for all of us IMO.

 

Have a great day 

 

 

 

[Katty]

Yes, but protecting yourself from misinformation is not a simple thing. You can't just go on Snopes and call it a day anymore. I have seen Snopes say in their head line, such and such a theory is false, but when you really read further, you find that the words in the article actually contradict the headline, or proves to be much more nuanced than an absolute "This claim is false!".

While scientific evidence to verify a claim gives great credence that such a claim is true, lack of scientific evidence, doesn't necessarily mean such a claim is false. It could mean that claim is false if it's something that has undergone sufficient testing to verify a claim as false, or it could mean that sufficient testing hasn't been implemented yet.
The world is promoting a narrative about science that is outright anti-scientific with claims like "don't question the science!" or "the science is settled". I don't think that's how science, works though. Science is nothing more than a method of testing hypotheses, so it should not necessarily be the only means by which truth or falsehood is verified, as it is limited to the observation of researchers. Also, when considering numbers, most people don't consider those numbers within context. For instance, the news will provide accurate numbers about the pandemic, but they won't provide relevant numbers for making an accurate comparison. They might tell you the increase in how many people were tested positive, but not the increase in how many people, including asymptomatic people were tested all together, either because they felt compelled to do so, or were forced to in order to resume their routine activities. We might know how many people died within a 3 week period of being tested positive (a phrase the BBC likes to use), but if they are counting everyone who dies within so many months of a positive test, without regard as to if they actually died OF the virus, or the previous condition of those who died, if they did die of the virus, they're not really giving relevant information that is useful for making a sound decision. They're telling you the truth, but that's the tricky thing about statistics. You can share true statistics all day, but  it doesn't necessarily mean those true statistics are relevant to anything useful.

Regarding political bias, I think it's safe to assume ALL media companies have at least some bias. It would be naive to get all your links from CNN, MSNBC and NYT without cross-referencing with Breitbart and Newxmax. I think both sides are biased. Maybe the conservative side is more biased, but maybe it's just an illusion because the bias on leftist news is more accepted. I made the mistake of citing a news source that presented a story that a news company on the opposite side of the political spectrum did not present. I will not make that mistake again, as I've seen that those who present articles with a more conservative bias on this forum get openly called out for it way more than those who will only present news stories with a more leftist bias such as MSNBC. I'm starting to believe that if both liberal and conservative leaning news companies don't cover something, then maybe it's not worth sharing anyway.

As far as conspiracy theories go, I think it's important to also be balanced in what we consider to be merely a conspiracy theory. People who do research, and in their research don't find conclusive, scientific evidence that masks actually do much the prevent the spread of covid and thus, in places where there are no mask mandates might weigh out the decision of wearing a mask based on the discomfort of impaired breathing vs the perceived benefit. They may, in their research, not believe there is sufficient reward for wearing a mask for the discomfort it brings. It's not the decision I personally would come to, but if I heard out such a person, I would not be so quick to dismiss them as being a conspiracy theorist or spreading misinformation. I think on both sides, it's important to do research and do what you think best for yourself and your family, while weighing Bible principles, but whatever your stance is to not try to pressure other people to follow the same stance because you have "all the right facts" whereas they don't. It's the same thing with the vaccine. This vaccine has not been tested to the degree that most vaccines have. Some of the friends have experienced side effects. These are facts, not conspiracy theories. Hence, if some people want to hold off on taking the vaccine that's their business.

However, I agree that no one should be spreading ideas that aren't worth spreading. I know I did vent about Bill Gates in another thread. I just don't care about his opinion on anything. He's proven himself to be an unethical person, and thus I don't believe his opinion is worth giving all that much weight to. But I don't necessarily believe he's part of some big conspiracy that is exploiting the pandemic for personal gain as some might believe, just because I don't trust that this "how to avert a climate change" book, has our bests interests at heart, as is much more than just a well timed cash grab. But, I'm not saying no one here should buy it. If someone thinks that's best for them, that's fine. I apologize if I offended anyone who was inclined to do so.

 

I think it's good to have healthy skepticism; I don't think healthy skepticism equates to being a conspiracy theorist, but I've seen evidence that a lot of people seem to believe exactly that. I think it's so easy to equate, "we must be cautious" to "we need to set rules and be upset of other people don't follow the rules we think need to be followed." The latter attitude is naturally divisive and alenating.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Katty

[Susan Cook]

57 minutes ago, Katty said:

Yes, but protecting yourself from misinformation is not a simple thing. You can't just go on Snopes and call it a day anymore. I have seen Snopes say in their head line, such and such a theory is false, but when you really read further, you find that the words in the article actually contradict the headline, or proves to be much more nuanced than an absolute "This claim is false!".

While scientific evidence to verify a claim gives great credence that such a claim is true, lack of scientific evidence, doesn't necessarily mean such a claim is false. It could mean that claim is false if it's something that has undergone sufficient testing to verify a claim as false, or it could mean that sufficient testing hasn't been implemented yet.
The world is promoting a narrative about science that is outright anti-scientific with claims like "don't question the science!" or "the science is settled". I don't think that's how science, works though. Science is nothing more than a method of testing hypotheses, so it should not necessarily be the only means by which truth or falsehood is verified, as it is limited to the observation of researchers. Also, when considering numbers, most people don't consider those numbers within context. For instance, the news will provide accurate numbers about the pandemic, but they won't provide relevant numbers for making an accurate comparison. They might tell you the increase in how many people were tested positive, but not the increase in how many people, including asymptomatic people were tested all together, either because they felt compelled to do so, or were forced to in order to resume their routine activities. We might know how many people died within a 3 week period of being tested positive (a phrase the BBC likes to use), but if they are counting everyone who dies within so many months of a positive test, without regard as to if they actually died OF the virus, or the previous condition of those who died, if they did die of the virus, they're not really giving relevant information that is useful for making a sound decision. They're telling you the truth, but that's the tricky thing about statistics. You can share true statistics all day, but  it doesn't necessarily mean those true statistics are relevant to anything useful.

Regarding political bias, I think it's safe to assume ALL media companies have at least some bias. It would be naive to get all your links from CNN, MSNBC and NYT without cross-referencing with Breitbart and Newxmax. I think both sides are biased. Maybe the conservative side is more biased, but maybe it's just an illusion because the bias on leftist news is more accepted. I made the mistake of citing a news source that presented a story that a news company on the opposite side of the political spectrum did not present. I will not make that mistake again, as I've seen that those who present articles with a more conservative bias on this forum get openly called out for it way more than those who will only present news stories with a more leftist bias such as MSNBC. I'm starting to believe that if both liberal and conservative leaning news companies don't cover something, then maybe it's not worth sharing anyway.

As far as conspiracy theories go, I think it's important to also be balanced in what we consider to be merely a conspiracy theory. People who do research, and in their research don't find conclusive, scientific evidence that masks actually do much the prevent the spread of covid and thus, in places where there are no mask mandates might weigh out the decision of wearing a mask based on the discomfort of impaired breathing vs the perceived benefit. They may, in their research, not believe there is sufficient reward for wearing a mask for the discomfort it brings. It's not the decision I personally would come to, but if I heard out such a person, I would not be so quick to dismiss them as being a conspiracy theorist or spreading misinformation. I think on both sides, it's important to do research and do what you think best for yourself and your family, while weighing Bible principles, but whatever your stance is to not try to pressure other people to follow the same stance because you have "all the right facts" whereas they don't. It's the same thing with the vaccine. This vaccine has not been tested to the degree that most vaccines have. Some of the friends have experienced side effects. These are facts, not conspiracy theories. Hence, if some people want to hold off on taking the vaccine that's their business.

However, I agree that no one should be spreading ideas that aren't worth spreading. I know I did vent about Bill Gates in another thread. I just don't care about his opinion on anything. He's proven himself to be an unethical person, and thus I don't believe his opinion is worth giving all that much weight to. But I don't necessarily believe he's part of some big conspiracy that is exploiting the pandemic for personal gain as some might believe, just because I don't trust that this "how to avert a climate change" book, has our bests interests at heart, as is much more than just a well timed cash grab. But, I'm not saying no one here should buy it. If someone thinks that's best for them, that's fine. I apologize if I offended anyone who was inclined to do so.

 

I think it's good to have healthy skepticism; I don't think healthy skepticism equates to being a conspiracy theorist, but I've seen evidence that a lot of people seem to believe exactly that. I think it's so easy to equate, "we must be cautious" to "we need to set rules and be upset of other people don't follow the rules we think need to be followed." The latter attitude is naturally divisive and alenating.

Does “ spreading ideas “ include wild speculation? Ive just been told that’s what most of this message board is about! 😂

[Susan Cook]

On 5/10/2021 at 2:49 PM, Tortuga said:

Its been my experience that some people justify their thought process by saying "anything is possible" or "it could be true". Personally I think that is dangerous thinking because it acclimates us to accept diluted truths. We need to be in the habit of listening to and sharing truth, not half truths.

Does that include wildly speculating?

[Tortuga]

6 minutes ago, Susan Cook said:

Does that include wildly speculating?

Anything is possible 🤣

[Thesauron]

17 hours ago, Katty said:

While scientific evidence to verify a claim gives great credence that such a claim is true, lack of scientific evidence, doesn't necessarily mean such a claim is false. It could mean that claim is false if it's something that has undergone sufficient testing to verify a claim as false, or it could mean that sufficient testing hasn't been implemented yet.
The world is promoting a narrative about science that is outright anti-scientific with claims like "don't question the science!" or "the science is settled". I don't think that's how science, works though. Science is nothing more than a method of testing hypotheses, so it should not necessarily be the only means by which truth or falsehood is verified, as it is limited to the observation of researchers. Also, when considering numbers, most people don't consider those numbers within context. For instance, the news will provide accurate numbers about the pandemic, but they won't provide relevant numbers for making an accurate comparison. They might tell you the increase in how many people were tested positive, but not the increase in how many people, including asymptomatic people were tested all together, either because they felt compelled to do so, or were forced to in order to resume their routine activities. We might know how many people died within a 3 week period of being tested positive (a phrase the BBC likes to use), but if they are counting everyone who dies within so many months of a positive test, without regard as to if they actually died OF the virus, or the previous condition of those who died, if they did die of the virus, they're not really giving relevant information that is useful for making a sound decision. They're telling you the truth, but that's the tricky thing about statistics. You can share true statistics all day, but  it doesn't necessarily mean those true statistics are relevant to anything useful.

Some things cannot be proven by science. But when they can, we rely on science to tell us when we can rely on something. And we also remember that one study is not enough, several are needed.

[Thesauron]

17 hours ago, Katty said:

As far as conspiracy theories go, I think it's important to also be balanced in what we consider to be merely a conspiracy theory. People who do research, and in their research don't find conclusive, scientific evidence that masks actually do much the prevent the spread of covid and thus, in places where there are no mask mandates might weigh out the decision of wearing a mask based on the discomfort of impaired breathing vs the perceived benefit. They may, in their research, not believe there is sufficient reward for wearing a mask for the discomfort it brings. It's not the decision I personally would come to, but if I heard out such a person, I would not be so quick to dismiss them as being a conspiracy theorist or spreading misinformation.

A conspiracy theorists believes that we are forced to wear mask because of some group who secretly wants to control us. We shun that. Regarding wearing masks, if the government says “do so” or a business does, is it against our Christian conscience to wear one? No. Would it be against our Christian conscience not to? Yes. Because we would not follow the authorities. If the governing body says, “wear one, if at all possible under these and these circumstances,” do we follow? We do! We are obliged follow as long as it does not violate our Bible-trained conscience.

[Thesauron]

17 hours ago, Katty said:

I'm starting to believe that if both liberal and conservative leaning news companies don't cover something, then maybe it's not worth sharing anyway.

Well, we need to ask ourselves if the piece is just political, or an opinion piece. It is true that it is good to have many sources from both sides of the spectrum backing up your story, if possible. Perhaps even news sources from other countries.

[Michał]

On 5/15/2021 at 5:09 PM, Katty said:

I think it's good to have healthy skepticism; I don't think healthy skepticism equates to being a conspiracy theorist

I think healthy skepticism is a vaccine (no pun intended 😉) against conspiracy theories. 

[carlos]

On 5/15/2021 at 6:07 PM, Susan Cook said:

Does “ spreading ideas “ include wild speculation? Ive just been told that’s what most of this message board is about! 😂

Speculation is ok as long as it's made clear it's speculation. When speculation is presented as facts, then it's "spreading ideas".

[Sofia]

On 5/10/2021 at 9:47 PM, Thesauron said:

 

‘Is the content legitimate news or just a meme?’

 

The truth about conspiracy theories

 

Protect Yourself From Misinformation

 

https://www.jw.org/finder?wtlocale=E&docid=501100022&srcid=share

 

Food at proper time! Thank you Jehovah!

[Eejay]

11 hours ago, carlos said:

Speculation is ok as long as it's made clear it's speculation

With respect, I feel we need to go a bit further than this. When does speculation become hypothesis become theory become fact? It has a lot to do with evidence. Could it be argued that speculation is a legitimate tool in the quest for knowledge? Speculation is defined as "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

 

The problem with speculation is not its label. It is more to do with the effect it has on both the originator and the listener. In the context of media manipulation, it is not just about the motive of the originators of misinformation, it is also about the willingness of the consumer to accept sensationalised assertion. The recent sale of the National Enquirer for a reported $100 million dollars underlines that tendency. The widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution is another example to show how preference is a major factor over evidence. Other examples could be cited, such as the mass acceptance of Christmas as a Christian festival, despite the proliferation of evidence to the contrary. Extreme examples include the activities of late 19th Century lynch mobs in the US.

 

It is necessary to qualify what the speculation is about before we determine it being "ok". There is a big difference between a child imagining what is inside the colorful wrapping on a surprise present, and the elaborate arguments of those who assert the 9/11 disaster was not carried out by "terrorists". Notwithstanding, the child's speculation has the potential of leading to disappointment.

 

As for the realm of speculation on Biblical topics, which is likely the idea that @carlos was responding to, we have long had good counsel on the matter.

 

*** w62 6/15 pp. 380-383 Avoid Unprofitable Questions ***

A Christian who indulges in speculation from the platform or in group Bible study tends to attract undue attention to himself. Personal theories can cause division of thought and even lead to disputes about trifles. Ones newly associated with Jehovah’s congregation might be stumbled by what would appear to be a lack of love and unity. By setting up hypothetical situations and then speculating on the answers to problems posed thereby, are we not in fact adding to Jehovah’s words? In matters that involve our everlasting life it is not prudent to judge or conclude from slight indications or merely probable grounds. We cannot worship Jehovah in spirit and in truth if our worship is based on speculation. Truth and theory are not synonymous. Wisely, Paul’s inspired counsel is: “If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words. From these things spring envy, strife, abusive speeches, wicked suspicions, violent disputes about trifles on the part of men corrupted in mind and despoiled of the truth.”—1 Tim. 6:3-5.

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2021 by Eejay

[M.J.]

6 hours ago, Eejay said:

if our worship is based on speculation

I think this was a key part. Am I starting to make decisions based on speculation? Then my foundation is not sound.

 

As a side point, a friend told me, "I give opinions, not advice." I loved this, because it's important to make clear to others when our ideas are just that, ideas and theories, but not something that anyone should build a foundation on. A lot of this might be miscommunication. I might strongly express a personal idea, not realizing that others are taking my words to heart in a way that I never intended. This made me think of our Bible reading this week. When some of the tribes asked for a different portion of land, Moses made them see that their actions may inadvertently have a discouraging effect on others. Numbers 32:7 "Why should you discourage the people...?" I just had this happen to me this week. I said something out loud, that to me was a realistic part of life, but I didn't realize that it created fear in someone listening to me. I may walk away and not give it a second thought, but the person listening to me may have become perturbed and keep thinking about it for a long time. 

[Tortuga]

18 hours ago, carlos said:

Speculation is ok as long as it's made clear it's speculation. When speculation is presented as facts, then it's "spreading ideas".

I like the way the Branch explains their speculation here;

How would it be possible in 1,000 years to resurrect and educate the billions now in the grave?Nevertheless, an illustration reveals what a simple, practical thing Jehovah has in mind for mankind. Not to prophesy, but merely for the purpose of illustration, let us assume ...

[Eejay]

16 hours ago, Tortuga said:

the Branch explains their speculation here

Great illustration. I remember when I read that first in the Aid Book in 1971. Did it precede that?

 

I wonder if it really fits the definition of speculation: "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence". I would hazard that there is firm evidence for everything suggested apart from the numerical sequence and even that has some basis in Ezekiel's prophecy, Ez.47:1-5.