How do you discern sources?

[Travis Retriever]

Or tell when one is full of shit versus one that is more accurate?  This is at the crux of skeptical inquiry I found and what can often lead people astray as much as non-Bayesian thinking.  If you overshoot it in one direction, you end up a crazy cynic and conspiracy theorist.  Go too far and you end up a sucker who believes anything you hear and whose wallet (and dignity) are more empty than a supermodel's stomach the day of a photo shoot.

This is especially interesting when sites conflict on the ideas presented.  Take this example of how much protein you should eat:
http://www.medicinenet.com/how_much_dietary_protein_to_consume/views.htm
vs
http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/
Now, while I'm no expert in this field, a few things *really* stuck out in the second one that screamed red flag:  the name of the site, the use of the bolded words "The Truth" on the "About" page, saying not eating a lot of protein is "unnatural" as if that were bad--made on an unnatural computer.  And the biggest of all was saying near the end "Humans evolved as carnivores.  We evolved to eat meat!"  No.  We.  Aren't.  We are omnivores.  The fact that we have both sharp knife like teeth (incisors) AND flat grinding teeth (molars) should be enough evidence for that.

What's more I recall either Potholer54 and C0nc0rdance going into this absent any knowledge by tracing their sources back to the original.  That struck me as a good idea too.
So what methods to use when unsure of things?  Basically, how to sort the bogons from the precious cluons?

[dallen68]

Well, you can look for someone's name on the source material, usually if it's legit, they'll give you some indication of how they know whatever it is they're saying.

You can search around and find the out the reputation of the site, but you kinda have to be careful because sometimes you'll run into someone that gives a bad review or something on a perfectly accurate (within reason) source.

Generally, you can get an idea just from the language of the source. Legitmate sources generally aren't going to have a bunch of emotional appeals/exaggerated claims/whatever.

If at all possible, check more than one source. For your example, I'd check the USDA or the AMA or whatever the American Dietician Association's site says.

As far as these two sites go, my guess is they are both relatively accurate, but they are talking about different things. One is talking about how much protein you need; the other is attempting to debunk a myth about excessive protein sapping calcium and other things.

[MrBogosity]

That would be the Baloney Detection Kit again.

[Travis Retriever]

That would be the Baloney Detection Kit again.

And how does that work?

[MrBogosity]

And how does that work?

Like this: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

[Travis Retriever]

Like this: http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html

Bookmarked for great justice, thanks Shane!

[dallen68]

This one is a little easier to follow:

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

[Ibrahim90]

If the paper (and or researcher), works like this asshole and his papers, it is bullshit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf

it has all the shit in it that the warnings from Sagan included. it is gloriously repugnant.

[MrBogosity]

If the paper (and or researcher), works like this asshole and his papers, it is bullshit:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf

it has all the shit in it that the warnings from Sagan included. it is gloriously repugnant.

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.

Ditto this: ""A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?

And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!

The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.

I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.

I smell a plant.

[Travis Retriever]

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.

Ditto this: ""A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?

And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!

The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.

I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.

I smell a plant.

Yup and it's stuff like that being the reason why that second paper I presented I suspected is bullshit.

[Travis Retriever]

As far as these two sites go, my guess is they are both relatively accurate, but they are talking about different things. One is talking about how much protein you need; the other is attempting to debunk a myth about excessive protein sapping calcium and other things.

Both touch on the claim of Kidney issues with eating too much protein (among other things) and both are on the dangers (or lack thereof) of eating too much protein.
Also, thanks for the link to Carl Sagan's too.

[Ibrahim90]

yeah, it's a perfect example of almost every logical fallacy as shown by Carl Sagan.

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Um, yeah, and Tiktaalik dates after land vertebrates formed. Anyone who understands how evolution works wouldn't use this as an argument against it.

Not just that, but Archaeopteryx is no longer believed to be a bird, strictu sensu. in addition, new finds have come from China from the late Jurassic.

"A velociraptor did not just sprout feathers at some point and fly off into the sunset." Of course, velociraptors DID have feathers, and while it's doubtful they could fly, they could most likely hover over their pray while they ripped them apart with their claws. Half-formed flight, baby! Exactly what the creationists have been wanting us to show.

it's of course, also a strawman of conventional theory about bird evolution.

"We aren't suggesting that dinosaurs and birds may not have had a common ancestor somewhere in the distant past," Quick said. "That's quite possible and is routinely found in evolution." That is ALWAYS found in evolution. What's this guy trying to pull?

weasel words! (from Quick,not you).

And, of course: "Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions." Yep, the World Scientist Conspiracy!

it's also projection and special pleading. Ruben's career is built entirely on his trying to shoot holes in the current theory: he has more on the line than the mainstream do. And he's trying to explain away why his theory isn't being accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

The paper itself doesn't actually demonstrate anything; all it does is try to shoot holes in the existing theory, which is par for the course with creationists.

oh, you missed the best part, didn't you? go down to page 32 or thereabouts. it gets fucking entertaining.

I did a bit of Googling; creationist websites reference him for other clearly-bogus claims like T. rex was a vegetarian.

I smell a plant.

I don't know about him being a "plant", but he is a dubious person: he is one of a special group of particularly obnoxious people (largely in America and Italy) called "BANDits" (BAND is short for "birds are not dinosaurs". And this is far from his first paper on the matter: he's been at it since 1993. I did once ask Robert Bakker about him back in 2009, after I did my honors project on dinosaur metabolism back when I was a shophomore, and he said that the guy was "an idiot" and a "creationist". thing is though, there's no evidence that he is: his papers are simply fuel for them.

[MrBogosity]

oh, you missed the best part, didn't you? go down to page 32 or thereabouts. it gets fucking entertaining.

Um, the paper referenced in the story is only 15 pages long. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmor.10752/pdf

[dallen68]

I noticed in the references Ruben cites himself a lot. I believe that's considered a questionable practice (i.e. raises yellow flags) academically.

[MrBogosity]

I noticed in the references Ruben cites himself a lot. I believe that's considered a questionable practice (i.e. raises yellow flags) academically.

Not necessarily, but if that's pretty much ALL you can reference, then yeah, it's a bad sign. But scientists reference their own work a lot. That's how they build on what they've done before.