How most to understand quality of information?
Throughout article subject “Where to look for truth? About reliability of sources of information“ let`s deal with a question: how recipients of information should behave with new information ? Question correct and interesting. The knowledge for mankind can be old as the world, and for each of us during life it is, as a rule, new .
First of all, address the Academy dictionaries, reference books, encyclopedias (the Encyclopedia of the Paranormal Phenomena “ editions are excluded“). It is work and quite intense (once, getting acquainted with a problem of ofiolit , I used up four pages of terms). So you will break barriers of special languages which are used even in scientifically - popular articles.
Estimate character of the information platform on which article or the monograph, information on the author, the summary, the bibliography is placed. The preference should be given to original articles and reviews in the reviewed magazines. From scientifically - popular Priroda and V mire nauki magazines deserve unconditional attention. Here experts with promoting gift write, but articles are available also to laymans.
You will come across a certain “shocking“ material . If this material in the “yellow“ press, then is usually an invention or a reprint by the principle “will not frighten - will not read“. Safely pass as information noise, or as my grandson speaks, do not take a steam bath . In serious sources only the expert can estimate degree of “shokiruyemost“. But such articles - pulling on the Nobel Prize - are quickly checked in various laboratories. If the mistake as was with a “cold“ thermonuclear reaction, opening is closed; if the result is confirmed, kaks Messbauer`s effect - the author is given Nobel as to Rudolf Messbauer.
About a doomsday in 2012 . Here it is necessary to have some general scientific outlook that know what data contradict modern natural-science representations. The doomsday will be (for planets of Solar system) through 5 billion years when the Sun turns into red giant and will absorb planets up to Mars. All the rest - nonsense. Do not read about “eternal“ engines, also contradicts the beginnings of thermodynamics. Etc.
How to separate “wheat from a ryegrass“ among infinite, absolutely “ill-matched“ information streams? Only relying on the experience. When before you there pass hundreds of thousands of articles, books, notes, papers (namely the active scientist possesses such experience), you automatic machine will be, reading on diagonal, to eliminate a ryegrass. I usually tried to deal with “zero“ scientific problems on which almost nobody worked. Then it is necessary to look for and read less. It is difficult to work (there is nobody to lean), and it is easy to be published and be protected - nobody works in this direction.
How it is correct to react to new information and how it is not necessary to react to it? To check. Experience - criterion of truth since the time of F. Bekon. Or to compare various authoritative sources if beyond your powers check. To address authorities personally though in new and they will not help - because new! Approximately so. Professionals and so know it, and youth... - it is necessary to study, to lopatit information. Another is not given.
Progress to you, dear inquisitive readers! Inquisitiveness helps to overcome difficulties of search of truth.