With Breitbart "News" currently welcome at White House press briefings, I've been asked whether Breitbart is now a legitimate news source. Let me make this real simple. No, Breitbart is still not a legitimate news source. And, no, having a large following of committed readers and true believers doesn't help their cause. Here's why.
The White House is a reflection of what's happening in America. The people who occupy the White House have to appreciate and react to what's popular, and even faddish, in the country. Unfortunately what's popular, no matter how repugnant, has a shot at being mainstreamed by the White House. Slavery? Check. Sexism? Check. Jim Crow? Check. The White House is, after all, the people's house. Fads and even repugnant ideas all make their way through the White House.
What this means is that just because Breitbart, and Fox News, are part of the White House press pool doesn't mean they are going to be accepted news or research sources outside of their immediate circles. The final arbiter of what constitutes reliable information, or good research sources, rests with those who regularly follow legitimate research protocols, or abide by the scientific method.
It was, after all, the scientific method that enabled us to fight infectious diseases, go to the moon, and predict things like cyclical eclipses. Richard Dawkins tells us how we ultimately know that the scientific method works, in layman's terms.
The scientific method is the relentless and methodical pursuit of the truth. Breitbart doesn't pursue the truth. They pursue an agenda. They want to shape the narrative. They are very clear about this (as is Fox News). Rather than explain the scientific method, let me make this real simple by borrowing from my January 2017 post to illustrate how the scientific method works in the field of education.
Over the years teachers and researchers have studied how we learn and acquire knowledge. In the process they have developed tests and standards that tell them if a student is on the right track or - and unfortunately - if they live in an Alternative Facts "anything goes, as long as I believe it" universe.
What we've learned in the process is there are objective truths in education.
By the time a kid enters Kindergarten they should be able to color between the lines.
If a 2nd grader is asked to add 2 + 2 and comes up with "leventeen" there's a problem.
By the time a kid gets out of middle school they should understand that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth.
If we understand these agreed upon, peer-reviewed, truths, then we can begin to understand why arguments that begin with "Breitbart or Rush Limbaugh said ..." are not going to be acceptable answers.
So, yes, there are objective truths. Similarly, just as there are good sources and bad sources, there are real universities and fake universities. Remember Trump University?
No, this is NOT the Scientific Method
It simply means they may have stumbled on anecdotal evidence, which we can discuss (remember, even a broken clock gets it right twice a day).
We're not here to discuss sources that have the logical coherence of a Monty Python skit.
If you believe otherwise, it's up to you to explain why we even have universities or research centers. Seriously, if your "leventeen" is considered valid because it makes sense to you, and that's what you want to believe, what's the point?
It's really that simple.
- Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment