rc e s

So u
ia b le
R e l
din g
Fin
How to Improve Your
Investigation
 The Bad News
 No easy answer
 There’s no “reliablesources.com” to visit
 And if there were, you wouldn’t know if it’s trustworthy
 The best we can do is a set of guidelines

 You’ll have to use your best judgment, and

sometimes you’ll make mistakes, but that’s good
practice for life
 Guidelines
 Guideline 1
 ABC: Always Be Critical!
 You can always be fooled, and you can always be
mistaken
 There’s no such thing as an objective source
 You can learn a lot by searching for a source’s critics
 Guideline 2
 Get to the source
 Look for the primary source, the original source of the
information
 Follow links or Google researchers/authors
 Guidelines
 Guideline 3
 Authorship is important
 If you can’t tell who wrote a piece, it’s hard to gauge their
credibility
 Learn the author’s field of expertise
 Guideline 4
 Experts aren’t infallible
 Expertise is usually limited to a narrow range of fields;
beware “experts” speaking outside their field of study
 There are fringe scientists in any field; look for the
consensus
 Starting places
 General Search Engines
 Example: Google
 Pros
 Easy to use
 Lots of info
 Cons
 Doesn’t distinguish between
good & bad sources
 Tips
 Be aware of ads & sponsored
links
 Starting places
 Wikis
 Example: Wikipedia
 Pros
 Lots of info
 Constantly updated
 Footnotes & sources
 Cons
 Anyone can update
 Sometimes inaccurate
 Tips
 Use the footnotes to find better
sources!
 Starting places
 Informative sites
 Examples: About.com,
HowStuffWorks
 Pros
 Lots of info
 Often written by experts
 Cons
 Very basic
 Sometimes inaccurate
 Sometimes hard to find original
sources or authors
 Tips
 Use to locate additional sources
 Starting places
 Academic Search Engines
 Examples: Google Scholar,
EBSCOHost
 Pros
 High-quality sources
 Lots of ways to search
 Cons
 Search engines & articles are often
only available to academic
institutions or paying customers
 Tips
 Consult your local library or college
 Secondary Sources
 News sites
 Examples: New York Times, BBC
 Pros
 Written for a general audience
 Usually credit sources
 Cons
 Sensationalized headlines
 Often poor representations of the actual
research
 Prone to false balance
 Tips
 Don’t read the comments. Ever.
 Secondary Sources
 Popular publications
 Examples: Discover, Scitable,
ScienceNews
 Pros
 Good information written for a general
Re d!
je te audience
ctejec  Usually reports the science accurately
R d!
 Cons
 There are some bad sources masquerading
as official sites
 Tips
 Use these to find the actual journal articles
 Secondary Sources
 Blogs
 Examples: Bad Astronomy, Science-
Based Medicine
 Pros
 Often written by experts for a general
audience
 Can give you direct contact with good
science communicators
 Cons
 May have to search for specific topics
 Tips
 Use the search functions & tags
 Researchblogging.org
 Secondary Sources
 Books
 Examples: Disappearing Spoon, Immortal
Life of Henrietta Lacks
 Pros
 Often written for a general audience
 Cons
 Anyone can write a book
 Often outdated
 Not easily searched
 Tips
 Use the index
 Check the footnotes/endnotes!
 Don’t forget about textbooks
 Secondary Sources
 Fact Checking Sites
 Examples: Factcheck, Snopes
 Pros
 Clear, thoroughly-linked articles on
claims in the news
 Cons
 Sometimes biased or oversimplified
 Tips
 Use these as tools to check out
claims from other sources
 Primary Sources
 Journals
 Examples: Nature, Science, JAMA
 Pros
 Original research
 Peer-reviewed
 Cons
 Written for experts
 Tips
 Read the abstract!
 Beware of vanity presses
 PLoS One
 Primary Sources
 Government agencies
 Examples: CDC, FDA, NASA
 Pros
 Lots of good information presented in
fact sheets, reports, and tables/graphs
 Thoroughly sourced
 Cons
 Sometimes hard to find detailed
information
 Tips
 Know what agencies deal with your topic
 Primary Sources
 Independent agencies
 Examples: AMA, ACS, AAAS
 Pros
 Research targeted at specific issues
 Usually not-for-profit agencies
 Cons
 Each has a particular agenda, so be
wary of bias
 Tips
 Look for “Resources” pages & links
 Primary Sources
 Corporations
 Examples: Monsanto, Pfizer
 Pros
 Fund lots of scientific research
 Cons
 Research tends to be kept secret for a
period of time
 Obvious bias toward selling products
 Tips
 Press releases aren’t research, but
may help you find research
 One More Thing
 Pseudoscience
 Beliefs or fields of study presented as scientific,
but lacking valid scientific methods
 Examples: Astrology, Phrenology, alternative medicine
 Pseudoscience is often difficult to distinguish from
the real thing if you don’t know what you’re
looking for
 Pseudoscience
 Features of pseudoscience
 Begins with conclusion & justifies it
 Vague/exaggerated claims
 Inconsistencies with itself or with known facts
 Lack of peer review
 No interest in outside verification
 No attempt to conduct rigorous tests
 Refusal to correct mistakes
 Claims of immunity to scientific methods
 Unfalsifiable ideas/claims
 Pseudoscience
 Red flags
 Unnecessary jargon
 Claims of conspiracies/cover-ups
 Claims of secret/ancient knowledge
 Reliance on testimonials and other low-quality evidence
 Hostility to criticism
 One-explanation-fits-all approach
 Arguments from authority
 Excessive ads & conflicts of interest
 Promising to reveal secrets for money
 Online Sources
 Long-Term Strategies
 Build a “web of trust”
 Sites that are generally reliable on specific topics
 No source is perfect, but many sources are good, and
will provide you with links to better sources
 Example of A Web of Trust
 General
 Snopes.com, Skeptic’s Dictionary
 Biology & medicine
 Science-Based Medicine, Talk Origins, CDC
 Astronomy
 Bad Astronomy, NASA, Universe Today
 Climate Science
 RealClimate, Skeptical Science
 Class Activity
 Build your own web of trust!
 This can be done in groups or solo.
 Find at least 5 reliable websites.
 The websites do not need to be about anything in
particular but try to relate them to English.