3 things i want to add, because there are definitely folks that I've had to teach this stuff to: keeping an open mind is not going to be enough, with how misinformation is spreading these days.
Take the example: "I just think fluoride in the water does X"
Thoughts /like this/ don't come from nowhere. When you have "I just think" thought, or "maybe" thoughts, or you notice yourself learning or having a new opinion from one you've previously had, this can OFTEN be mistaken as growth, as improving.
So, #1: Determine where you got that new opinion/fact. Did it come from a reliable source? Can you even ID where you got the idea from or did you just sort of "absorb" it from hearing it around? (an example: there are PLENTY of 'old wives tales' type bits of information floating around. One of the more common ones I see in chicken keeping is people recommending apple cider vinegar for everything, despite a complete lack of scientific evidence that apple cider does.... well, anything, aside from slightly inflame the GI tract due to acidity. The info doesn't come from science, it comes from one person saying it and others playing Telephone until "everyone knows" except no one actually does know)
#2: if it didn't come from a reliable source, is there a reliable source that actually backs it up? Is there more than one? Are there any extenuating circumstances or conflicts of interest evident? Does the "news headline" of the story match what the source material actually says or did it sensationalize it? (an example: I OFTEN hear people quoting that opossums eat 5000 ticks in a season. This isn't true. Opossums eat no ticks. There was ONE poorly done study that "found" they groomed them off and ate them, compared to 28 other studies that found zero tick parts in stomach contents or fecal matter from opossums. Which is a more reliable "fact" in this instance? I'm going with 28 studies that found opossums don't eat ticks).
And perhaps most important to not finding yourself calcifying propaganda or false info: #3 How do you KNOW the source is reliable? where did the source get their info/how was that info acquired? Were there any conflicts of interest? Has the info been corroborated by anyone else? How long ago was the info generated? Is there anything that might pressure this source into being unreliable? When was the last time you checked who runs the source and how? (example: chicken world again, there was a pretty well known chicken blogger who was releasing medical info on birds, particularly nutritional info, and recommending diets to people, as well as food additives. Even slightly scratching the surface revealed she was heavily recommending Purina products not because they were actually good [they are NOT, Purina is one of the worst for fowl feeds], but because her blog was sponsored by Purina... not exactly unbiased opinions being given)
Part of questioning information is questioning the sources for your information, not just the info itself.
That is one of the huge reasons FOX news has managed to get its hooks into people like my parents; the moment they decided that FOX news was a completely reliable source and stopped questioning where FOX got their info (and whether THAT source was reliable), they started going down the rabbit hole of mind calcification and falling for propaganda, to the point where my mother - a woman who worked for like 40 years in a research lab specifically for respiratory illness research - got angry with my sister during early COVID times when my sister insisted they get vaxxed/had to wear PPE before they were allowed to visit their vulnerable newborn grandkid.
So yes, examine the beliefs/opinions/"facts" you know, but remember that part of that is examining the sources of those things.
discoholicmusic
prguitarman
jacobvanloon
ellievsbear
