|
- Apart from in school science lessons info rarely comes in a pure form, rather it comes inside stories which include emotion and with other info which may turn out to be false. There is always a need to unpack the story to get to the raw info. Do we need to take into account the context i.e. From a Daily Mail Article or direct from your scientist friend ?
- I know this from teaching English; some students are worse than beginners. They have learnt to do something the wrong way so first you have to get them to unlearn this habit, before you can teach the correct way. One may see an emotional story banged in again and again by newspapers so form a picture in ones mind. But 10 years later in a calmer more objective time understand the picture in a completely different way and realise your initial point of view was wrong. Whereas if your mind had been less contaminated, then you would have reached the truth quicker.
- It would be good if their was an information service which supplies uncontaminated information .... actually Wikipedia with it's policy of NPV is aiming for this I suppose. The BBC although aiming for impartiality seves a lot of contaminated info through it's choice of agenda, lifting stories from other media, emotional input etc It's the nature of TV, radio in comparison to encyclopedic writing.
- Rather than being productive reading newspapers leaves more muddled than before, unlless one has imense skill in filtering bad info from good.
|
