Critically Evaluating the Ingredients to Beliefs

As human beings we inescapably use information to form beliefs (i.e., conclusions) on all manner of things. As such, information necessarily constitutes the premises to our beliefs, structuring their very path. Erroneous, irrelevant, or incomplete information would, therefore, misguide any beliefs. Given the sheer volume of information that modern life hurls at us, critically evaluating information in service of the formation of conclusions regarding important matters becomes indispensable.

Critically evaluating guidance of any sort is undoubtedly an entire science in and of itself. No singular blog post could ever serve as a sufficient exposition. This post is merely an insufficient exposition on this matter. It should also be mentioned that the best practices discussed ahead are suitable for issues one can, for the most part, think about coldly and objectively ( e.g., when considering the recommendation of an alternative route to one’s destination from a taxi driver). On the other hand, my suspicion is that the loose set of practices discussed ahead is inadequate with respect to matters one cannot easily think about objectively. These tend to be issues that pertain to things such as our values and identities. Critically evaluating information with respect to such issues requires a much more robust set of practices because of the emotional impact of the information to the thinker.

The first step in the evaluation process should be questioning whether the information comes from a reputable source. Though not a guarantee, reputable sources are at least more likely to provide information that is objective and unbiased compared to, let’s say, propaganda outlets. The goal should be to obtain one’s news from well-established sources with some history behind them. Information obtained through scholarly and journalistic sources should obviously be allocated more weight than information obtained through sources such as informal online discussion posts or blogs wherein anyone, regardless of qualification or integrity, may contribute. Peer-reviewed, expert testimony publications undergo scrutiny in a way that self-published, unrefereed material does not.

After settling on the sources of information, one must begin exercising critical thought regarding the information under consideration. This entails judging how thoughtful the information is regarding the issues it covers. The information should ideally methodically go in-depth in exploring, and expounding the implications of, the issues that it tackles and not merely superficially brush them. Try determining the reasons for the assertions, both implicit and explicit, embedded in the information. Significant claims should be backed by facts, evidence, citations, and testimonies. The thought of relying on unsubstantiated information should give one obvious pause.

In judging the thoughtfulness of information, there is also something to be said of its form and presentation. Well-structured and delivered information that makes effective use of language to illustrate its point is obviously better than an inarticulately strewn, nebulous narrative that can be easily misconstrued. Though disinformation can certainly be delivered by skilled rhetoricians, the point is to ensure that one accurately comprehends valid and truthful information regarding complicated matters coming from reputable sources. Moreover, an articulate narrative, in any case, indicates at least the investment of thought into it. One’s chosen sources of information should be at once both informed and informative.

The purpose of critically evaluating information is that one is not readily accepting of claims on face value or blind faith. Adopting a healthy amount of skepticism is essential. If the underlying issues are important, one would be wise to gauge the durability of the assertions. For this purpose, compare the assertions provided by a given reputable source of information with those of other reputable sources of information. Care must be exercised to ascertain if they say, more or less, the same thing or if there is significant variance between the assertions coming from different sources. Significant variances could—as long as the different sources are concerned with the same, or very closely related, issues—indicate doubt regarding the accuracy and reliability of the information provided by one or more of the sources.

Should this occur, one would need to expand the number of reputable sources from which to obtain information. However, considering greater volume of information does not necessarily have to translate into a greater level of difficulty to find the figurative signal in the noise. Rather, any significantly divergent assertions are to be eliminated after a study of the different sets of information. The remaining assertions should essentially say the same thing. On the other hand, if the remaining assertions merely weakly imply the same thing then one must infer a precise conclusion premised on the multiple, convergent assertions.

The conclusion, of course, needs to be reasonable in light of the information. One’s personally-drawn conclusion regarding an issue should be a logical consequence of the information considered and not be unrelated, or negligibly related, to the information considered. The greater the degree of proximity between one’s conclusion and one premises (based on the information considered), the greater the odds of one’s conclusion being valid. On the other hand, the greater the leap between one’s conclusion and the information consumed in its service, the greater the odds of one’s conclusion being erroneous.

After forming a conclusion, one ought to gauge the universality of one’s belief by conversing with, and soliciting the thoughts of, other thoughtful individuals concerned with the same, similar, or related matters. This is best accomplished by Socratically engaging them to learn of the sources of quality information they trust as well as to understand how they reasoned their way to their conclusions. Making this sort of interpersonal engagement a habit, irrespective of whether or not the other party reached the same conclusion, is epistemically healthy. This is a very effective way to discover, both one’s own and those of others’, blind spots and other flaws in reasoning.

Toward the end of this due diligence process one’s beliefs regarding a matter could be, depending on the case, either upheld in their entirety, refined, modified, or perhaps even completely jettisoned. Though clearly effortful, the foregoing set of practices increase the odds that one will form wiser, truer, and more justified beliefs—which is the ultimate goal of philosophy.