ENG124 Grossmont College Discovery Channel Assignment My Thoughts This is a research essay about reliable and fake websites. I will provide you a presentat
ENG124 Grossmont College Discovery Channel Assignment My Thoughts This is a research essay about reliable and fake websites. I will provide you a presentation slide that you have to look at and read to answer the questions that are given in the slides into the essay! I also will provide a “sample essay” that you can look at to know how the proffessor wants this essay to look like. IMPORTANT NOTE:* please write the essay with mostly basic English words not advanced a lot because i am not from the U.S and my language is medium.* please look carefully into the SAMPLE ESSAY and make sure to do similar to it. * I Don’t want the essay to be too long! * If you have any question let me know! I would be happy to answer Student 1
Student Name
Instructor
English 124
20 September 2017
Discovery Channel Assignment: My Thoughts
Parts 1 and 2: Two sources and my inference:
I choose Dr. Michael Persinger and Dr. David M Jacobs for this project.
Source 1: Dr. Michael Persinger a neurologist and geologist
Source 2: Dr. David M. Jacobs a historian
Screen shots of Dr. Persinger research results:
Vidano 2
Vidano 3
1.) Are there any sources that I immediately trust as reliable? Which one and why?
a. Yes, a few sources appear reliable.
b. Skeptico.com and BBC.com appear to be reliable sources because these
two sources seem to be the most informative available. Skeptico.com
seem like it would be informative because of the title skeptico.com which
probably means the site refers to skepticism. BBC.com seems like it would
be reliable because it appears to be an older source of information.
Therefore, it must be more established and reliable than most other
sources.
2.) Are there any sources that you immediately assume will present a biased
perspective? Which ones and why?
a. Yes, a few sources appear biased to me.
b. Wikipedia, reddit, and debunkingskeptics.com all seem to be biased
sources. Wikipedia appears biased because anyone can create a
Wikipedia page (no need for expertise). Furthermore, just because these
sources seem biased doesnt mean they will be incorrect, rather they will
be incomplete. Reddit appears to be completely biased because it is an
open forum where anyone can talk about anything, credibility doesnt
matter, and no issue is ever solved. Moreover, issues only seem to arise
from forum sources. Debunkingskeptics.com is also a forum source, and it
seems it will be biased since it appears to solely be about trying to prove
skeptics wrong.
3.) Are there any sources that are unfamiliar to me? Speculate what they might be
Vidano 4
a. Sacredneurology.com is unfamiliar to me. This source seems to be
focused on neuroscience hypotheses and theories. There may be facts
from this source, or there may be opinions. I doubt this source is named
sacredneurology.com and focuses on dog jackets
that would be absurd.
So, I think, this source must be centered around neuroscience (theories,
new studies, and alternate looks at neuroscience). I wonder why Sacred is
in the title. Sacred is different to all people and, therefore, has many
different meanings. For example, one may find a morning cigarette
sacred, just as well, one may find reading a Christian Bible sacred.
Neurology defined is the study of nerves (the nervous system). These
two terms together make for an interesting title because the tile is an
oxymoron. Sacred focuses on something that we cant comprehend,
whereas, neurology focuses on the study of our mind. Since we dont view
ourselves as sacred
how would our neurology be sacred?
b. Virginiaghosts.com is unfamiliar to me. This source, in my opinion,
appears to be strictly based on claims of value. Technically, ghosts are
just a hypothesis, there is no evidence to support the claim that ghosts
exist. There may be evidence that appears to support this claim, but does
it? The evidence to support this claim is based on speculation and
inference (personal belief).
c. Rexresearch.com is unfamiliar to me. Reading the description, of this
source of information, the source appears to be biased because it appears
Vidano 5
to be written by Dr. Michael Persinger. So, this must be a biased source,
but probably not unreliable.
d. God-helmet.com seems like it would be biased. Godhelmet.com seems to
cover Dr. Peringers god-helmet is endorsed by him and this seems to
pigeon hole the source and its reliability.
Source 2: Dr. David M. Jacobs
Screen shots of Dr. David M. Jacobs search results.
Vidano 6
1.) Are there any sources that I immediately trust as reliable? Which one and why?
Vidano 7
a. Yes, a few sources appear credible in my opinion.
b. Coasttocoastam.com and Skeptico.com appear credible.
Coasttocostam.com appears credible because Ive listened to that show
and George Noory doesnt seem to be out to lie to anyone, but talk to
experts and discusses the facts. Also, coasttocoastam.com seems that
Skeptico.com appears reliable because, again, in my opinion, this seems
like a source that propagates critical thinking. Also, I think that this source
may be reliable because it will most likely be unbiased and fact based.
2.) Are there any sources that you immediately assume will present a biased
perspective? Which ones and why?
a. Yes, a few sources appear to be biased in my opinion.
b. Ufoevidence.org, veilofreality.com, huffingtonpost.com,
simonshucester.com and aliensandchildren.org all appear to be biased, in
my opinion, because they all center on the belief that aliens exist. And,
each URL seems as if its agenda is to convince the researcher why its
data is accurate. Ufoevidence.org is probably biased because the URL
seems to focus on aliens existing. Therefore, any evidence to support the
contrary to their claim will probably be disregarded. Veilofreality.com
appears to be biased because the title infers that there is a veil draped
over our eyes. I mean, the title implies, we arent aware of reality. Both,
these sources appear to be biased and not very reliable.
Huffingtonpost.com is a news source that is unreliable and very focused
on the Huffington posts agenda, not about disclosing all the facts.
Vidano 8
Simonshcuster.com is a publishing agency and probably isnt concerned
with factual evidence, or equal views.
3.) Are there any sources that are unfamiliar to me? Speculate what they might be
a. Yes, a few sources are unfamiliar to me
b. Greengainconsultants.com, ufotrail.blogspot.com, and
forum.prisonplantet.com are all unfamiliar to me.
Greengainconsultants.com is new to me and is probably an
environmentally focused source. Possibly, the URL appears to be
centered on environmental issues, why there are issues, and how best to
solve our environmental problems. Both, ufotrail.blogspot.com and
forumprison.planet.com are probably blogs where people discuss
sasquatch, UFOs and paranormal activities. Aliens, in my opinion, may or
may not exist, we dont have the evident to verify that they do exist, and
we dont have the evidence to claim they dont exist. The topic is sensitive
because people argue for both sides and claim that the evidence of their
agenda is superior to the other partys. Likewise, the same argument can
be made about sasquatch and paranormal activities.
Part 3: Reliability of Sources:
I searched all the sources that I thought were reliable and I was mistaken. Not
only are most of these sources unreliable, but there is no author, publication date, or
even real credibility towards the topic at hand. On one side, the site Skeptico.com that I
thought would be credible is just a pod cast. In other words, the reliability of this site is
null and void (non-existent). On the other side, Coast-to-coast am is a (radio) talk show,
Vidano 9
but there is a publish date and the talk shows credentials seem legitimate. Wikipedia,
surprisingly, was the most reliable source out of my research choices because it had the
most references, to compare, on one subject. At first glance, I was misled and must
remember that anyone can claim to be an expert. All in all, my assumption on what was
credible and reliable, and what was an unreliable scam was wrong.
Step 4 Biased Sources:
I searched the sources that I thought would be biased, and my assumptions
about the sources being biased were right and wrong. Regarding Dr. David M Jacobs.
according to the article titled, They walk among Us, We may be talking about a
subject many people still find incredulous, but Dr. Jacobs has solid credits. He received
his PhD from University of Wisconsin in intellectual history, but finding the UFO
phenomenon fascinating, wrote his dissertation on the controversy of UFOs. Hes only
recently retired from Temple University in Philadelphia where his specialization was
20th century American pop culture (The Huffington Post). This statement is attempting
to lend credit to Dr. David M Jacobs but, this article is biased towards Dr. David M
Jacobs appearing as an expert. Also, according to ufoevidence.org, Dr. Jacobs began
researching the controversy over unidentified flying objects in America in the mid
1960’s, and has amassed over 35 years of primary research data and analytical
hypotheses on the subject (ufoevidence.org). This article gives completely different
data on Dr. David M. Jacobs, and his credentials. This raises the questions of how can
his reliability be verified, and how are these sources unbiased? This is how two of the
articles based on Dr. David M. Jacobs appeared to be biased toward their agenda.
Vidano 10
Two sources that appeared biased on Dr. Michael Persinger were Wikipedia and
debunkingskeptics.com. According to the bibliography on Wikipedia, Dr. Persinger has
been a professor at Laurentian University sin 1971, is a neuroscientist and natural
philosopher, and has mad claims that all paranormal phenomena can be explained by
natural phenomena and the human brain (Wikipedia). Wikipedia amazingly — seems
to give an unbiased description of Dr. Persinger. However, according to a forum from
debunkingskeptics.com:
Dr Michael Persinger of Laurentian University quickly became the science
darling of skeptics and atheists a decade ago with news of his ‘God
Helmet’, which appeared to show that ‘sensed presence’ of supernatural
entities (and/or ‘God’) may be simply due to magnetic disturbance of the
brain. Since then however, Persinger has not made himself an overly
attractive science reference for skeptics as he has been involved with, and
claims to have achieved positive results in, experimental parapsychology.
Earlier this year, Persinger gave the following lecture, titled “No More
Secrets”. In it, he detailed his theories on the connection between
magnetic fields and the brain, in particular how this relationship could
facilitate telepathy and remote viewing. He notes particular experiments
and individuals (Ingo Swann,Sean Harribance) that seem to give evidence
supporting his theories, and makes some fairly extraordinary claims which
I’m sure will lead to some debate (Posted by Greg at 02:53, 17 May 2011).
This post is exactly why forum sources like this are unreliable and biased because this
poster is unreliable and a skeptic. There is no information about the poster other than a
Vidano 11
name, time, and date this was posted. Similarly, other forum based sources suffer the
same bias. These are some examples of how certain sources I picked were biased as I
predicted.
Part 5: Unfamiliar sources:
I searched rexreaserch.com because it was unfamiliar to me. Initially, I was
skeptical because the website appeared to be a sales site for Dr. Persingers GodHelmet. According to the website, The apparatus uses magnetic fields, and not EMF
emissions, as is sometimes thought. Much of the controversy surrounding the ‘God
Helmet’ is due to this misunderstanding. Further confusion has appeared from the
misperception that Persinger’s apparatus is an example of TMS (transcranial magnetic
stimulation), a clinical technique that employs magnetic fields much stronger than the
Koren Helmet, and that uses pulsed ‘trained’ magnetic fields, instead of the ‘complex
magnetic fields’ used in Persinger’s research (rexresearch.com/persinger). My
interpretation was that I deduced the God-Helmet to be a head worn device designed to
invoke sacred, divine, paranormal, or spirit vision. In my opinion, its like the brain
helmet that Doc Brown wears in Back to the Future. There were many references,
regarding the articles on the website. This leads me to believe that this source is
credible. However, because of how many different and reliable references the website
contains, regarding each article, this makes me wonder if some of the references are
credible and some arent. I decided not to go with the blatantly credible websites that
were .edu, .gov, .org, or any obviously credible URLs. Instead, I chose to go with
websites that seemed credible at first glance. I used three different search engines most
of which are popular and
Vidano 12
Part 6: Credibility:
Based on my research, Dr. Michael Persinger is an expert in his invention the
God Helmet and Dr. David M Jacobs is an expert on American History, but neither of
them appear to be fully credible to me. Both, I mean, have their hypotheses that still
need to be proven, so this means that all their claims are claims of value. Another
aspect, I found odd, is Dr. Michael Persinger had a few academic websites regarding
Laurentian University, links directly to his personal blog, and links websites containing
data about correct usage and sale of his God Helmet. Dr. David M. Jacobs initial
websites were not academic; instead, most of the links appeared to be based on his
own personal websites about UFOs. There might be evidence that appears to support
their various and different claims, but neither appears to have the correct answer.
Compelling as their evidence may be all the evidence appears to be speculation.
Rationale:
Anyone can be credible
cant they? Credibility revolves around faith and beliefs
individual or societal whether religious based, self-inspired, or peer pressured.
Credibility is not an ambiguous word; Credibility may have different meanings, but its
not ambiguous, its quite specific. A sources credibility can be misconstrued,
misinterpreted, and manipulated; how the information is presented, what is being
claimed, and listeners skepticism all play a major part in credibility. But, even if a
source seems credible it may not be. The source may be biased towards a certain
agenda, country, political party, perspective, fear or just a preference. You can,
eventually, turn over enough stones to have biased views show their ugly face. I mean,
by thorough investigation, deception can be revealed. So, this returns to credibility or
Vidano 13
reliability. Every source of information thats credible is also biased, yet every source of
information thats biased is not credible. So, its hard to pin down the Experts on any
subject. Facts can be misconstrued and we as humans dont have the photographic or
video camera memory we think we have.
Doing Research
Your Credibility
? Knowledgeable
? Well-informed
? Truthful
How do you acquire
credibility?
? Evidence
of careful research
from best authorities
Evaluating Websites
? Hacker
? Works
94-101
Cited Web sites, Hacker 157-161
Evaluating Internet Sources
?Why
do I need to evaluate the
information I find on the
Internet????
Evaluating Internet Sources
?Standard resources you find in
libraries and research
institutionssuch as books,
journals, and dissertationshave
been evaluated by scholars,
publishers, or librarians before
they get to you.
Evaluating Internet Sources
?The
Web is different: anyone can
publish a web page. The result is
that dubious resources are
available on the Web, as well as
excellent ones.
Evaluating
Internet
Sources
?to
separate the good
from the bad on the
Web.
What criteria should I use to
evaluate Web pages?
?
Use criteria from these “4 Cs”
?
Content
?
Credibility
?
Currency
?
Clarity
I. Content
What is the purpose of the site? Try to determine if it is attempting to
influence public opinion, promote products, or present current
information. Figure out which of these categories the website falls under:
advocacy, commercial (selling, marketing), news, informational, or
personal.
How in-depth is the material?
What information does this site offer that is not found elsewhere?
Does the document include a list of references and/or is the
information verifiable in some way?
If the author’s treatment of the topic is controversial, does he or she
acknowledge this?
I. Content
Are there reviews of this site? How many other sites link to this
one? Who is linking to this site, and why? To determine who is linking
to this site, go to the search engine, Google. In the search box,
enter link: immediately followed by the site you are investigating.
For example, link:ford.com (Important: Omit the” http://www” part
of theURL) will tell you who is linking to Ford’s website.
Does the content appear to be popular, serious, scholarly, or
humorous? In other words, what is the intent of the content, and
who is the intended audience?
Are the links in the site inward focused (pointing to links within the
site) or outward focused? If all links point back to the site itself, then
it is a dead-end site, which does not allow for other points of view.
II. Credibility
Is there an author?
Is the page signed?
Is the author qualified? You may have to search for information on the
author on the Web or in standard library resources. Or the author may have
supplied his or her biography, or a
link to it.
What organization sponsors the page? Does the organization have an
“agenda”? You can sometimes figure out who the sponsor is by returning to
the main page,which ends with the type of domain, such as .edu or .gov.
Is the sponsor reputable? You may have to search for information on the
sponsor on the Web or in standard library resources. Or the organization may
have supplied information about itself from its own page.
II. Credibility
Does the author of the page appear to be biased? You may be
able to tell from the sponsoring agency. Or, if the links from the
author’s page return BACK to the author’s page, he or she is operating
in a closed circle that does not entertain other modes of thought.
Also, does the author offer a list of references at the end of the web
page, which would indicate that some impartial research was done?
What can you discover from the URL of the document? Does it have
a political or philosophical agenda? Is it extremist? Is it a .com, or
corporate site, that may only present information on itself in the most
positive light?
Does the author display knowledge of the schools of thought in his
or her subject field? Look for known theories, philosophies and
techniques in his or her treatment of the subject.
III. Currency
How current is the website? Check throughout the
page, especially the bottom of the page, for the
“last updated” date. In addition, by reading through
the site, you can sometimes spot dated information.
If no date is given, you can view the directory on
which the site resides, and read the date of latest
modification.
Are the links from the site to other sites kept up-todate? Check for dead (inactive) hyperlinks, by
clicking on them.
IV. Clarity
Does
the author use jargon unknown to the average user?
Is the text written well, with acceptable grammar and
spelling?
Is the site well organized and easy to navigate?
Is there a table of contents or index that can be used to
navigate the site?
Is the structure of the site stable, from one visit to the next?
What do I do if I am still not sure
about the reliability of my source?
?
Whenever you are in doubt, please feel free to ask one
of the Reference Librarians to help you.
?
Reference Librarians are trained to discern whether
information is credible and can show you other credible
sources, as well.
?
3/2000 by Patricia Morrison, Grossmont College Library
?
99-0931-002W rev. 11/07mb
Wikipedia Redux
Fake Professor in Wikipedia
Storm
Internet site Wikipedia has been hit by
controversy after the disclosure that a
prominent editor had assumed a false
identity complete with fake PhD.
From: BBC News 6 Mar 2007. 11 June 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/americas/6423659.stm
Fake Professor in Wikipedia Storm: Internet Site Wikipedia has been Hit By C…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
