Me? I thought the class was dumb because it was super obvious. But I’m inherently skeptical, and I do think its important to have for most people who don’t think critically.
I can’t remember the details, but I suspect it was things like who wrote it? Are the claims cited? Who are they citing? Is it peer reviewed? What is the author trying to convey? What type of language is being used? Who is the target audience? Etc
Still better than nothing. Although most of those seem to be training people that “who said it” is how truthfulness of a statement should be judged which is exactly backwards.
The point is to understand the concept of credibility. Who said it matters. Some people have a demonstrated history if credibility. Some people have a demonstrated history of incredibly.
The value of “who said it” is to help you recognize their motivation. Anyone trying to convince you of something has a vested interest in their position. Understanding the speaker is critical in understanding their position.
Me? I thought the class was dumb because it was super obvious. But I’m inherently skeptical, and I do think its important to have for most people who don’t think critically.
I can’t remember the details, but I suspect it was things like who wrote it? Are the claims cited? Who are they citing? Is it peer reviewed? What is the author trying to convey? What type of language is being used? Who is the target audience? Etc
Still better than nothing. Although most of those seem to be training people that “who said it” is how truthfulness of a statement should be judged which is exactly backwards.
The point is to understand the concept of credibility. Who said it matters. Some people have a demonstrated history if credibility. Some people have a demonstrated history of incredibly.
The value of “who said it” is to help you recognize their motivation. Anyone trying to convince you of something has a vested interest in their position. Understanding the speaker is critical in understanding their position.