Grumpy Old Biker wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
There are two way to believe you have good information:
- First is to examine the information, put it in context and see if you really believe it.
- The second is to decide whether or not you trust the source of the information.
And this, I think, is the crux. When I did the 'Stone Report' thing it came out very clearly indeed. My opponent Robert Gifford trusted the content of the new speed camera report on the basis of the qualifications of the author. I knew it was rubbish on the basis of the content.
But most of us don't have the means to be able make a decision on whether or not we believe facts presented to us. It's either a gut feel or we accept until proven otherwise. Initially, we only have an opinion on the validity of the source. (Which can sway our opinion on the truthfulness, I guess).
Anyway, facts and figures are only one part of our overall judgement. Can it really boil down to whether we trust the Government and their servants?
Well, of course, it isn't just the government. It's the poeple who believe the government too, and those researchers who reach the same conclusions. But of course the government and those supportive researchers aren't skilled drivers either. So the sets are approximately:
{government folk with a vested interest AND those they employ AND those researchers who DON'T have driving skills AND those who believe the rest of this set on the basis of their qualifications or positions}
AND
{folk who think for themselves AND skilled drivers who DON'T take the government case at face value AND folk who understand our case}
I suppose there are also those who are undecided.
I expect this general description could be firmed up a bit too, but having been fighting this fight for five years, I'm absolutely certain about the general description.
I will say it was quite a revelation, for me personally, when I realised that some folk determined the quality of information by looking at the authors rather than the information itself.