What defines a reliable source?

What is it that makes a particular source valid?

We all have seen people using the Bible as historical fact. People will always do that, even though the Bible has been passed down through word-of-mouth several hundred years, translated and retranslated through several different languages, and was modified by others along the way. The Bible is an obvious case of a less-than-trustworthy souce, but how can we be sure that any source is valid?

Once you consider it, the problem may seem simple. Peer-reviewed resources are valid, biased religious publications aren’t. And so on. But wait–there’s more! Couldn’t you have a peer-reviewed religious journal? What about the Journal of Irreproducible Results? (Okay, maybe that’s not a serious journal, but the point still stands.) So we need a better definition of “valid.”

First, we need to compare a “valid” source with an “invalid” one in terms of experimental evidence. A valid source usually uses reproduced experiments or documented math to arrive at its conclusions. An invalid one probably doesn’t, or the experiments are flawed, undocumented, etc. Or perhaps there is no source for the invalid conclusion. This seems to happen a lot, with conclusions being drawn based on “facts” that were actually made up.

Second, we need to look at the actual conclusions drawn. A scientific and valid journal will probably make conclusions based directly on the experimental evidence found. An invalid source will probably take the “evidence” and make a number of inferences and assumptions before finally arriving at its conclusion. Sometimes, this uses the “slippery slope” fallacy with a number of “if this happens, this will happen” statements forming a chain of unlikely happenstances.

Pages: 1 2