This discussion (like many on HN) is a good example of the tool of skepticism about sources:
Almost every HN thread has a large proportion of attacks on the source and/or their methods. But interestingly, much of it is not (IME, IMHO) 'news literacy' or skepticism, it's the opposite:. Distrusting everyone is as unskeptical and illiterate as trusting everyone.
Skepticism requires examination of the facts, critical thought, and skepticism about ourselves and our own arguments and facts too. The results aren't simple, but nuanced: 'The report is this degree of good in that way, and that degree of bad in this way.' One potential signal is that if it doesn't add nuance it's not really critical thinking.
Also, if it repeats something we've already heard many times - memes, politicized talking points, etc. - it's not critical thinking. Finally, every work of humanity is flawed; critical reading is finding what we can gain from it, despite the flaws. Given the inescapable truth of our flaws, that is the only way we move forward.
Summed up, it's about how trustworthy a source is, what method was used to obtain the data or opinions in the material (if any), whether the observations or claims in it are first hand or second hand, and whether its conclusions are reasonably objective or subjective.
> Distrusting everyone is as unskeptical and illiterate as trusting everyone.
I hate to take the wind out of your sails because you do have a good point that I think people should pay attention to it but in a literal sense what you're saying is incorrect with respect to the both history of philosophy[1] and just the dictionary definition of the word[2]. What you're talking about is critical thinking, not skepticism. Skepticism is literally a position of general distrust within some domain or even globally. It's probably best not to conflate the two concepts.
> if it repeats something we've already heard many times - memes, politicized talking points, etc. - it's not critical thinking
This seems to be the modern default of online political arguments. Everyone spams their rehearsed talking points without any real engagement of what was being said. They may quote opponents, but the refutations often to have little or nothing to do with what was being refuted.
Then again, public debates have never had truth-finding as a goal: they’ve always been exhibitions to rally your base. Changing minds happens at the private scale.
> public debates have never had truth-finding as a goal: they’ve always been exhibitions to rally your base. Changing minds happens at the private scale.
That's defeatist. And the world has never had a public forum like the Internet. We're just learning how to use it well.
Almost every HN thread has a large proportion of attacks on the source and/or their methods. But interestingly, much of it is not (IME, IMHO) 'news literacy' or skepticism, it's the opposite:. Distrusting everyone is as unskeptical and illiterate as trusting everyone.
Skepticism requires examination of the facts, critical thought, and skepticism about ourselves and our own arguments and facts too. The results aren't simple, but nuanced: 'The report is this degree of good in that way, and that degree of bad in this way.' One potential signal is that if it doesn't add nuance it's not really critical thinking.
Also, if it repeats something we've already heard many times - memes, politicized talking points, etc. - it's not critical thinking. Finally, every work of humanity is flawed; critical reading is finding what we can gain from it, despite the flaws. Given the inescapable truth of our flaws, that is the only way we move forward.
I loved kebman's summary of the what they learned in Norway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28168435
Summed up, it's about how trustworthy a source is, what method was used to obtain the data or opinions in the material (if any), whether the observations or claims in it are first hand or second hand, and whether its conclusions are reasonably objective or subjective.