If you were given some information that you were not previously aware of, would you be MORE LIKELY to consider this information to be possibly true if it were given to you by a knowledgeable neighbor, media reports, a scientific laboratory, an Ivy-league university, a government agency, or rumors?
I would vote "None of the above". I try to gather information from all available sources, then form my own opinion.
i have "had" access to some information that governmental agencies used. there's little value in it to me and usually depressing. occasionally i rub shoulders with some interesting people in academia when seeking assistance, like cornering Lawrence Principe on big island to find out if a process stumbled upon was published or practiced. ...i could go down the line about how rumors and media (same thing these days) have offered a different perspective (and a lot of laughs.) so maybe all of the above? with a healthy serving of salt!
To degrees, most of us would, but which would you consider to be the MOST credible? I don't even bother looking for confirming information when the original information comes to me from some sources, while others I might be more inclined to believe.
I would say media if it includes my local newspaper. They have the facts straight most of the time. Then Fox News.
Shirley, you still read a newspaper??? Haven't done that in years. My news comes from desktop computer and my iPhone. Read your reply here and just wondered.
Agree! I consider news to be just noise until hearing (essentially) the same thing from a variety of sources.
And not from just other news channels, for, if you listen and read them, many times they are all quoting the same source verbatim and saying the same thing with no research whatsoever behind it.
@Cody Fousnaugh , I do subscribe to my local newspaper. It gives me local news that isn't available online. I turned my TV on to WRAL-TV yesterday just for a minute or so to see what's happening. The first story was about another policeman being killed. It went on and on about what a wonderful person he was and showed all the memorials pilling up. All the lurid details of how he died. Anything to add sensation to the story. I turned it back off.
That's what I was gonna say. But I perfectly trust no one. If you're ever in a position to surf channels from one region's newscast to the other (or just bounce around between different local networks), it is chilling to see that they all cover the exact same stories (excepting local weather & sports) with the exact same position and in the exact same order...they are all following the same script. Yes, it is centrally orchestrated, if through no other means that their common source of the AP Wire. Since you insist, I said Scientific Lab. Assuming that none of the choices are biased, at least this one has standards of proof and negates the human bias as much as is possible. I was gonna say "Knowledgeable Neighbor [friend]," but--absent direct observation--they must be relying on the things in your poll.
Results from a lab are difficult to get unless you have contacts. The results are always filtered through people like Fauci, Mr. Science himself.
QWB. sd gst sd //// oops, the keyboard moved.... As far as I know, the scientific community, scientific method/s/ , mentality of science, and 'proofs' there-of, are all biased as much as is possible , legally, along with governments, and not reliable sources .
If I had to vote, I would say scientific lab, if the studies were double blind and not funded by the organization, company or whatever.