Stan Shebs wrote:
Steve Block wrote:
How do we know reliable sources aren't lying. Every newspaper and source in town reports Colin Montgomerie holed the winning putt in the 2004 Ryder Cup, but it isn't true, Ian Poulter struck the putt that mathematically won the cup. Monty's story simply made better press. If we do, as you say, withhold judgement on whether a source is correct, why do you then say we can't use some sources because they may be lying. Obviously some judgement is at play.
Well, if the source is lying, then by definition it's not reliable. Your example is an object lesson in how newspapers are intermediate in reliability; they are usually better than Joe Random's blog, but not as good as a scholarly monograph that has had multiple layers of review spread over multiple years.
We have no easy objective way of knowing that a source is lying. A newspaper may print a retraction within a few days of the original article on the subject, but we would be hard-pressed to know if this happened. Some newspapers like "National Enquirer" have a reputation for their unique interpretation of "truth". An archeologist who discovers a cache of these lining clay pots generations after the paper has ceased publication may believe that he has a trove of insights into the way that people lived in the twentieth century. As Walter Miller expressed it, a fallout shelter is a place where fallouts could seek refuge from the war. So yes, a lying source is objectively not reliable, but we don't know if it's lying.
Ec