I don't trust any sources. At all.

[Seegtease]

I have a problem, if you would call it that. I don't really trust anything.

Any source is biased. Any study is poorly done or has too many variables for accuracy. Any research is doomed to be outdated in x years. Some of these things MIGHT be true, but I have nothing to go on but my own intuition.

I don't trust somebody because they have years of experience or a PhD. The problem is people with years of experience are on both sides of an issue. How to raise your children, or how to properly diet to lose weight, for example. "experts" will have strongly differing views. This means experts are extremely prone to, well, being wrong, because one side has to be wrong (typically). And if the experts are wrong, who do I trust?

When you hear about news, it's always with a spin. Either the source tends to look at things from a liberal/conservative point of view, and emphasize some points while neglecting or omitting others. Or worse yet, research about the harm of a product isn't even helpful, because half of the time, the company itself or the opposing company had their filthy hands in the funding of the study, making the results questionable at best.

Even science isn't dependable. By its very nature, science is supposed to be constantly changing. We make a theory and prove it correct, but later a new theory comes along and blows the last one out of the water. It's evolving. What we found true 100 years ago, we don't find true at ALL now. The same will be true in the next 100 years. So whenever I read a report that is supposedly "science", all I can think about is the fact that in x amount of years, that will no longer be "fact". And if it's not fact in 100 years, then it's not fact now, either. I can't ever be sure.

So what can I believe? What can I trust? Does anybody else have this struggle?

[Zenotetsuken]

You can trust me. I just flop around like a fish until I decide what I want to believe, then I tell people they are wrong for thinking some other way. It works for me.
Seriously though, there are no correct answers in life. Searching for the correct answer is like searching for perfection, you will never find it because it will never exist. Just trust yourself to decide what you want to believe.

[icedwarrior]

I have the same problem.

Regardless of my immense skepticism on many (and perhaps all) things, I still always entertain the idea, and then try to develop an informed opinion / whatever about it. While it's obviously bad to ignore anything and everything because everything's "biased", the opposite is true as well. Just keep an open mind is all I can say.

[obdigore]

I don't trust that you don't trust sources.

I like to get stuff from a variety of sources and parse the data through my personal experiences before passing judgements. Everything you read is going to be biased by the difference of your personal experiences compared to the journalists experiences. Hooray! Humans are terrible witnesses, and that is why.

[Bigbamboozal]

I could tell you what it's about and what to do OP....but you wouldn't believe me.

[Seegtease]

I have the same problem.

Regardless of my immense skepticism on many (and perhaps all) things, I still always entertain the idea, and then try to develop an informed opinion / whatever about it. While it's obviously bad to ignore anything and everything because everything's "biased", the opposite is true as well. Just keep an open mind is all I can say.

Not too open. Or I'll start believing nonsense :P

I just tend to ignore sources and just look at how reasonable my intuition tells me the argument looks. Could I be wrong? Sure, but so could the source. And I could find another source that says the exact opposite, sometimes.

[Kalyyn]

I'd just like to remind you that they only real purpose in life aside from reproducing is being happy. That kind of cynicism will not make you happy.

If you die right and angry, and the other guy dies stupid and happy, then he beat you at life.

Basically, my advice to you is that if it doesn't directly effect you, there's no reason to question it so intensely.

[Taen]

If you can't handle looking at different sources, seeing every side of the story, and forming an informed opinion, feel free to just grab any random viewpoint and ideology and declare its infallibility. Even if it's completely ridiculous and makes no sense. Creationists do it all the time.

[Sy]

i don't "trust" anything either, i am completely aware of the fact that anything a human writes or says is in some way biased (even if not intentional), as is what my brain makes of the signals it gets from eyes, nose, etc.

yet i don't see why that should be a problem..?

[Seegtease]

I could tell you what it's about and what to do OP....but you wouldn't believe me.

I prefer the exchange of ideas rather than the citing of sources.

As in, instead of giving me a link to a study that says X, Y, and Z, I'd rather just talk it over with peers and come to our own conclusions based on our collective knowledge. Even if I disagree with someone, I do at least gain insight to their point of view.

I find discussion with people who can admit to not being "experts" much more productive than reading studies from proclaimed "experts".

---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 06:07 AM ----------

i don't "trust" anything either, i am completely aware of the fact that anything a human writes or says is in some way biased (even if not intentional), as is what my brain makes of the signals it gets from eyes, nose, etc.

yet i don't see why that should be a problem..?

Many people regard it as a problem if you don't unquestionably accept their sources.

[Sy]

I prefer the exchange of ideas rather than the citing of sources.

As in, instead of giving me a link to a study that says X, Y, and Z, I'd rather just talk it over with peers and come to our own conclusions based on our collective knowledge. Even if I disagree with someone, I do at least gain insight to their point of view.

I find discussion with people who can admit to not being "experts" much more productive than reading studies from proclaimed "experts".

agreed, although i still think some sources can give nice additional insights.
just use them to provoke thoughts, rather than to prevent them.

[Kalyyn]

I prefer the exchange of ideas rather than the citing of sources.

Ah, now it all makes sense. In this case, I retract my earlier statement and agree with you 110%.

[mea]

If you can't handle looking at different sources, seeing every side of the story, and forming an informed opinion, feel free to just grab any random viewpoint and ideology and declare its infallibility. Even if it's completely ridiculous and makes no sense. Creationists do it all the time.

He's looking at different sources, but no matter what, you have to leave some part of it to blind belief. You get to know the information that sources provide you, not what they know. Sometimes, but not always, these match. The forming of an informed opinion is affected by the two previous points. I agree that it's not smart to ignore sources - even if they aren't truthful, they can imply what is by indicating a hidden agenda that would encourage hiding the truth, or just sparking intriguing ideas to buil upon. However, an 'informed opinion' can end up being ridicuous, or insane, even if based on a seemingly rational idea. Because what you piece together to form the idea isn't something you're certain of.

No need to be condescending when responding to him, he's not being belligerent. You trust your intuition and make blind assumptions every day, and largely base your life and personality on them as well, whether or not you feel like an intellectual and analytical superior because someone else realizes it.

---------- Post added 2012-03-29 at 06:41 AM ----------

I'd just like to remind you that they only real purpose in life aside from reproducing is being happy. That kind of cynicism will not make you happy.

If you die right and angry, and the other guy dies stupid and happy, then he beat you at life.

Basically, my advice to you is that if it doesn't directly effect you, there's no reason to question it so intensely.

I get happy when i see someone state that what gives you happiness in life is what matters, rather than a concrete thing.

[Kalyyn]

I get happy when i see someone state that what gives you happiness in life is what matters, rather than a concrete thing.

Well then I'm glad I could help

[Djuntas]

OP, form your own opnions on what you hear/see then? And if you dont understand it (Ive been watching some odd science videos by Michio Kaku witch I honestly dont understand at all, and his ideas seems so wild, yet I do belive he got many great points), then atleast try to belive inn what you hear.

[Deleted]

Then please never go near a University campus and enjoy your bloody ignorance.

Edit: This thread just makes me depressed.

[Spellsword]

I don't trust people, but I trust science. Always trust in science!

[cFortyfive]

A good amount of distrust never hurts. Careful though if it grows too fast.

[Deleted]

Even science isn't dependable. By its very nature, science is supposed to be constantly changing. We make a theory and prove it correct, but later a new theory comes along and blows the last one out of the water. It's evolving. What we found true 100 years ago, we don't find true at ALL now. The same will be true in the next 100 years. So whenever I read a report that is supposedly "science", all I can think about is the fact that in x amount of years, that will no longer be "fact". And if it's not fact in 100 years, then it's not fact now, either. I can't ever be sure.

Science isn't supposed to be constantly changing at all. Some parts of it will, others won't. And we never prove a theory correct, all we do is show that it is the best possible explanation we have at the current time for whatever it is we're trying to explain. There's plenty we said was true 100 years ago that is still true today, it may be that our understanding has moved on and we realise it's a smaller part of the picture than originally thought but that doesn't make it false. Science builds on itself, we don't throw away previous understanding and knowledge when we make new discoveries, we add to it.

[Meteoric]

Even science isn't dependable. By its very nature, science is supposed to be constantly changing. We make a theory and prove it correct, but later a new theory comes along and blows the last one out of the water. It's evolving. What we found true 100 years ago, we don't find true at ALL now. The same will be true in the next 100 years. So whenever I read a report that is supposedly "science", all I can think about is the fact that in x amount of years, that will no longer be "fact". And if it's not fact in 100 years, then it's not fact now, either. I can't ever be sure.

This is totally false, you know. Fortunately for both you and me, someone far more eloquent than me explained it in detail more than thirty years ago: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm