Validity asks the question, "How do we know what we know?" Every field of study answers that question differently, but there are some ideas that are generally considered invalid, no matter whether an information source is scholarly or non-scholarly, and no matter what discipline or subject area it falls under.
In an earlier section, we talked about how the intended audience and purpose of an information source can slant the information in it. The concepts of ideology, agenda and bias are related to that.
A credible information source will not try to tell you how to feel about the information.
In the humanities, the author is either constructing a worldview, or (more often) adding to, refining, and correcting a worldview that other scholars have created. That worldview needs to be self-consistent and consistent with the evidence. It needs to be able to support new discoveries and insights. And it often needs to be beautiful.
Here are some criteria for validity that can be generalized in the humanities:
The social sciences try to explain human minds and human societies using scientific method, but they are limited in how they can apply scientific method because of the practical and ethical problems that arise when you try to experiment on or observe human beings, communities, and cultures under controlled conditions.
The sciences pursue data about natural phenomena, with the goal of formulating theories that explain and predict those phenomena.
In an earlier section, we talked about how the intended audience and purpose of an information source can slant the information in it. The topics of agenda and bias are related to that.
So while an author may belong to a certain ideology, that can still be OK. It's when the information source has an agenda, such that it's possible to detect bias, that's when you don't want to use the information source for research.
A few common ways that bias happens:
Emotional manipulation means that the information source has not stopped at trying to persuade you with facts and logic, but is actually trying to bypass your mind and get to your "heart" and your "gut." There are three main ways that this is done:
It's been shown that not only do our brains process images differently than they process language; they process images faster. So a well-chosen image can get to the emotional basis for your opinions faster than logic and facts can get to the rational basis for your opinions.
Reputable news sources are supposed to try to avoid manipulating the opinions of their audiences, but in practice, they frequently do.
Scholarly information sources are obligated to avoid manipulation with imagery. In fact, you will rarely find any images at all in scholarly sources, except photographs or illustrations of artifacts and events, sometimes portraits of persons mentioned, diagrams, charts, and graphs.
Stories work very much like images in that they appeal to our emotions, which, no matter how hard we try to be reasonable, can undermine our ability to be objective. Whenever we describe an event, we are telling a story. When the author of an information source describes something that happened in history, or in current events, or in the laboratory, the way they tell that story can end up being manipulative.
As you can see, the same story, told in different ways, has a different effect on the audience. Different details are included or left out. Connections are drawn to a bigger picture, either the bigger picture of "What's a mom to do when she needs to get cold medicine for her sick kid and there's nobody to watch him?" Or the bigger picture of "How can a mom leave her sick kid alone in the car in the middle of a very cold night?" My point here isn't to decide which perspective is right or wrong. My point is that whenever you are told a story, you need to think about the parts of the story you're being asked to focus on and how you're being asked to feel about it. Also think about the parts that are being left out.
If you find this kind of thing in an information source, it can't really be treated as credible for research.
Another way that information sources can manipulate your emotions is with ways of using the language to be able to imply something untrue or unacceptable, and at the same time avoid being held accountable for it.
The thing about loaded language is that it's much harder to avoid than weasel words or the other forms of emotional manipulation. So when you encounter mildly loaded language, like "the policy was courageous," that's not a deal-breaker.
But beware of information sources that sound like this (which I just got in my email) - "It's outrageous that Colgate is selling people a hygiene product that could hurt peoples' health."
A credible information source will not try to tell you how to feel about the information.
Finally, logical fallacies make an information source invalid. There are literally dozens of logical fallacies. What all of them have in common is that they are like a magician's sleight of hand, except done with reasoning.
Not all logical fallacies are used intentionally. Some of them are just very common mistakes in people's thinking. That doesn't make them any more correct, though!
Some of the really common logical fallacies found in daily life:
