Adele Jarrett

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-Combined201580
Home My courses Fall 2015 F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580
Thursday, October 22 Sources Discussion Forum (037) Sources Discussion

Search forums

Sources Discussion Forum (037)

Sources Discussion
Sources Discussion - James Kelly

Source Discussion
Display replies in nested form

Sources Discussion
by Garrison Hurd - Tuesday, 27 October 2015, 12:01 AM
Part 1: Confirmation Bias
One way I try to eliminate confirmation bias is to go in with an open mind, as if I didnt know
either side before and was hearing about it for the first time. There will be some bias still because
we all have our preferences and we all think we know the answer or have the best input.
Confirmation bias is in almost every work ever written and can be seen everywhere. Its nearly
impossible to get rid of it completely because you need emotion when you right to strengthen
your point and you cant do that if you dont believe in one or the other. It can be frustrating trying
to not put your bias into the paper but it just doesnt feel right when you dont put your own input
in. I do believe that my topic does eliminate some confirmation bias but not all of it, not even
close. Everyone does believe that there is a need to start to fade away from fossil fuels and bring
new energy resources into light but the way to do it is where the bias comes into play. Many
believe nuclear is where we need to go now because it is one that we have invested in for a while

and already get great amounts of energy from, but the public doesnt really like the idea of
nuclear power because of the incidents of the past. The public also has a lot of bias on events
they know nothing about other than what they heard on the news, which is often extremely
biased and worded to get the most reaction from the public. Confirmation bias cant be avoided,
it can be lessened but that is only from the perspective of the reader which is biased as well.
Part 2: Considering where strong sources come from
Sources can come from anywhere today. We have so many tools to utilize, the internet,
magazines, newspapers, books, museums, specialists, etc. Some resources are more trusted
than others such as a .gov website versus Wikipedia. Because some can be edited through the
general public and one has to be edited at the home account. In reality both could be wrong but
we trust the .gov more because its from a more reliable source. Strong sources often come
from works where both sides are mentioned and contradicted and that is peer edited so that you
can be surer that its accurate. Even though most of them have both true and false information
people only look at the most well-known usually. Popularity equals trust in our world today. The
more known something is the more trusted it is. This can be a flaw in our research, we could be
missing valuable sources because we look for things that we see or hear about often. We need to
look outside the box and take the path less traveled to really find good solid information.
Part 3: Criticizing Sources
http://www.altenergy.org/
There are a lot of unanswered questions in this source. It only talks about two of the many
sources of alternative energy and it doesnt go into much depth. I dont feel like I can really trust
this website, theres not much for me to go o of and I cant really go in depth. They say solar
energy is the best thing right now but in all my other sources either nuclear or hydro is the most
useful alternatives energy. Solar is new, expensive, and hasnt been able to be brought to its full
capability. There are many terms in there that I have never seen in my research, such as net
metering, and they dont explain it or give much reference to it.
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/AlternativeEnergySources.php
In this source there are a lot of flaws in the content. It gives the history of each source and gives
more examples of them than the last source but the facts are as true. From what I read they
believe that solar panels require almost no maintenance and last a long time and thats just not
true yet, those are characteristics of nuclear energy. They didnt seem to have done much
research and just wrote what they thought and used their bias. It was really hasty writings and
but gives a lot more information than the last article. But, I cant really go in depth or elaborate on
the ideas. It leads to a lot of questions that can lead me to more sources but itd be better if I
could get that information there and have it lead me to more critical questions rather than
definitions or confirmation sources.
780 words

Rate: Rate...

Reply

Re: Sources Discussion

by Adele Jarrett - Tuesday, 27 October 2015, 12:47 AM
Garrison, in part one where you explain how confirmation bias does not come into play
solely on whether or not society needs to stray away from the use of fossil fuels replacing
them with new energy resources but rather how it should be done. It is great that you realized
this because you now know where your focus needs to be when conducting research for this
project. Another point you made in part 1 explaining that one cannot avoid confirmation bias
but they can be aware of it thus decreasing their use in taking part in it was very good. I deem
some people believe we must try to completely throw away confirmation bias when
completing this project which concerns me because I feel like they will begin trying so hard to
find ways in which they can support the side they actually do not stand on. Therefore, I am
happy to see that you realize confirmation bias could never be completely thrown away.
I also think you did a great job talking about where sources come from in part 2. The
point you made stating that Popularity equals trust in our world today. The more known
something is the more trusted it is was very solid and makes sense. I never really thought
about it that way due to my blindness of being bias by trusting and siding with the more well
known news shows or the most popular websites simply because they are popular. Thank
you, great point that I am now fully aware of!
257 words

Sum of ratings: -

Show parent | Reply | Export to portfolio

Re: Sources Discussion

by Nicholas Ward - Tuesday, 27 October 2015, 1:04 AM
Garrison,
In part 1, you talk about it being dicult trying to eliminate your opinion from your own
work and not trying to sway facts or leave things out in order to make your side come
across as correct. I feel that they real point of this project is to be open to the idea that
what you think may be incorrect, and think critically about these sources so that you
continue to get better at analyzing information and being able to pick out things that are
questionable sources, and to trying to eliminate throwing your own spin on the information
as much as possible. In part 2, I agree with Adele that you made a very great point about
popular opinions as being correct. This is very prevalent in today's society and is
something that has always existed. Great job!

141 words

Rate: Rate...

Sources Discussion - James Kelly

Show parent | Reply

Source Discussion

NAVIGATION

Home
My home
My profile
Current course
F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580
Participants
Badges
Thursday, October 22
Sources Discussion Forum (037)
Sources Discussion
Kaltura Media Gallery
My courses

ACTIVITIES

Assignments
Forums
Resources
ADMINISTRATION

Forum administration
Subscription disabled
My profile settings

You are logged in as Adele Jarrett (Log out)

F15.UWRT1103 - Caruso-75800-Combined-201580