At the bottom below, many articles are listed by topic. Immediately below are some ideas on how to protect yourself against propaganda, pseudoscience, and lies.

News Sources - What are we reading? This chart puts sources in perspective.

Keep yourself informed about the world around you.

Do not trust the sound bites, but instead dig deeper and get perspectives from multiple sources.

It is the only way to see through lies and bias.

---

Uncovering Faulty Reasoning

1. Is the argument based on an incendiary incident that seems designed to enrage us? Be very wary of such arguments.

Example: In the run up to the Gulf war when Iraq attacked Kuwait there were immediate reports of the babies in incubators that Iraqis killed. This almost immediately mobilized support for the war. Anyone that knew of the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication for the Vietnam war knew that this story was also not likely true. Also this story came out before we knew any credible information about what was happening so it seemed very unlikely that this one very specific story that just happened to mobilize support for the war was true. It took some months to verify, but the murdered babies was a lie.

2. Questionable source?

If you hear or read something like, “My friend who works at            said there was a secret meeting, . . . ”, only continue reading for entertainment purposes. It is likely pure fiction.

3. Does the argument consist of attacking the person on the other side? This is an empty argument and clearly points out that there is no argument. If so, stop listening or reading. You will find only ideology devoid of ideas.

Example: (1/12/2020) Trump on Twitter: “Why did Nervous Nancy allow corrupt politician Shifty Schiff to lie before Congress? He must be a Witness, and so should she!” Trump has the evidence that would clear his name if he is innocent, yet instead of providing it he attacks his accusers. This makes it obvious that he is guilty.

4. Is the argument that the claims are true because they claim they are true? That is, do they just say something is true with no justification or argue that their gut feeling tells them it is true? If so, stop listening or reading. You will find only ideology devoid of ideas.

Example 1: A politician argues that we must stop voter fraud so we need voter IDs and we must purge voter rolls. It is claimed that there is voter fraud, but no argument for it is given. In fact, studies show that there is virtually no voter fraud (see https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/debunking-voter-fraud-myth ). Why do we hear this argument over and over? Because voter IDs and purging the voter rolls is an effective way to suppress votes and politicians use this false argument in an attempt to legitimize suppressing votes.

Example 2: Cutting taxes for the rich will trickle down and help everyone. This is a case where exactly this has been done repeatedly and it has never been true, but sadly the argument is still used.

5. Claim that an idea is wrong because it didn’t work in the past. This can sometimes be a good argument, but it is often used in situations where an idea was not really tried, but it is still blamed for the failed result.

Example: Socialism cannot work because Russia tried it and look what happened there. Even a cursory study of Russian history makes it clear that nothing remotely like socialism was tried there. Also, when socialism is discussed in the United States it almost always refers to Social Democracy which is closer to the government in Sweden which has been successful.

6. Black or White. An argument that makes extreme statements where everything is either black or white is almost always full of flaws.

Example: "Bernie supporters are aggressive and it is hurting his candidacy." Claiming that all Bernie supporters are aggressive is an extreme statement and is false. It is a clear attempt to frame Bernie Sander’s campaign and Bernie Sanders negatively when obviously every candidacy has supporters that make poor choices. Stop listening or reading. You will find only ideology devoid of ideas.

7. Does the author have a vested interest in the conclusions?

Example: "A new study finds that a full-scale single-payer health insurance program, also called 'Medicare for All,' would cost about $32 trillion over 10 years." This study was used by many to argue that we cannot afford it. People making this claim have a vested interest in the health insurance industry and healthcare for profit and they fail to mention that the study then says, "the plan would provide large savings to American households, who would no longer have to pay premiums or deductibles for their care, resulting in $886 billion in savings for people over 10 years. The plan would also provide insurance to everyone, reducing the number of uninsured from 32.2 million people to zero". Because of a vested interest in the conclusion, this rather important point is overlooked which changes the conclusion completely.

8. Question Cause and Effect. When you read or hear a cause and effect argument, question whether the cause is really the true cause. There are often clear reasons for cause and effect, but politicians have a vested interest in distracting from the true causes.

Example 1: "Trump praised West Virginia for keeping coronavirus out". This suggests that the cause of the coronavirus being kept out of West Virginia is that they have done a good job. But did West Virginia keep the coronavirus out or are there other reasons that explain the situation better. For example, was this result caused by low population density, less international travel, and very little testing? It is possible that West Virginia has done much less than other states and they will yet be hit hard by the virus.

Example 2: Trump talking about immigrants in July, 2015: “They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.” This implies that the cause of our problems is immigrants, but in fact Immigrants often fill the jobs Americans don’t want and Immigration is tied to positive economic growth and innovation. Why does Trump repeatedly make this argument? Political strategy is almost always to divide and conquer. His statements divide us and give us a scapegoat to blame for our problems. If his strategy works on us, then he also does not have to solve any of the real problems that would help us.

---

Also read Carl Sagan's take on propaganda: The Baloney Detection Kit. Carl Sagan’s rules for critical thinking offer cognitive fortification against propaganda, pseudoscience, and general falsehood..