How do you decide if a source used to confirm your opinions, beliefs and knowledge is reliable and accurate?

You can't really. All you can do is make a judgement about it's worthiness.

That in mind, it's better to seek out sources that COUNTER your beliefs. If your beliefs withstand those arguments, then you gain confidence you are correct. If you seek confirmation instead, you will typically not judge it critically.

Well . . . that's a hairy one. I'll give it a try.

All knowledge is (or should be) based on what we can detect somehow using our five senses. Our senses are fallible and people make mistakes, so things which are repeatable are closest to being certain. Observations are the most certain things we have to base our knowledge on.

After that, we can theorize based on those observations to create knowledge that approximates reality. But our knowledge is limited to a small slice of the universe around us, so the whole picture may be very different from the ideas we construct to explain it. The main thing that matters is that our findings are repeatable though, because that is what makes them useful to others.

Above I have described the purest form of knowledge, which applies to almost every case. But there is more to say about a special class of knowledge: that which we get from others. Since we cannot possibly go out and rediscover everything there is to know, we must learn to recognize knowledge that is reliable. That which is repeatable and comes from clear-thinking and knowledgeable individuals is most likely to be accurate. Knowledge which is based on solid evidence and makes sense is reasonable but not certain. Knowledge which comes from no evidence or is not repeatable (or both) is not very useful. Of course, everything is open to questioning at any point. The more times something has been independently tested and/or verified, the more reliable it is.

To some extent, we rely on the reputation of our sources to help us weed out unreliable knowledge. But when there appears to be a contradiction, we try to verify the results for ourselves. Theories get rewritten as more discoveries are made.

I guess all this sounds very basic and familiar, but that's all there is to it. Good night!

A shorter proverb would be: Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.....

Nothing is 100% accurate all the time. When I am trying to confirm something, I find two separate sources....sometimes 3.

I look for sources that are as objective as possible - with no axe to grind about whatever I'm looking for.

Good sources can be "Encarta" or Princeton University library.

If I'm looking for information on a person or an event, I check several non-media sources as well as different networks take on things. For checking a person, I find it's best to look to that person's history before he/she came to the public notice. What has he done in the past, etc.

I would never rely upon rumor, speculation, any single news source (never Fox News for anything), no single newspaper...but would look for the same information over several sources.

Great question! I agree with this also. I know it when I believe in something, cause it will agree with me and what I know is right. This usually happends instantly and I just know. I do also like what that other answerer said, regarding finding stuff that would go against these beliefs and find out if there true through process of elimination (something like that). This is a great idea too that I will have to try. Good Luck..... ERRROOF!

If I read it and want to believe it, I will first research the material, who wrote it, their bias and motivations (as much as possible); then I will search for other sources that back up this information....sources that would need to come from external documentation.....i.e.....matthew backing up what mark said is not valid b/c both are christian lit., both are long after the fact sources and unreliable in that Matt. copies much from Mark and Mark is written 80+ years following the events it speaks of.....I would need an external source that backed up religious tradition/fables with facts. I would also need to know why, if a man was actually rasing people from the dead, including himself, and who was feeding thousands with only a small amount of food, would no one deem it worthy of writing it down at the time of the event....and only deem it worthwhile 80+ years later.

I agree with the advice Buddha gave.

For Spiritual or matters of the heart....Listening when something resonates as the truth within ourselves is the best source of confirmation.

Me, I search for as much info on the subject that I can find and compare the contrasting view points along with whatever physical evidence may be left behind. I then form my opinions from the conclusions these sources lead me to.

Searching to confirm your opinions is ***-backwards. Search for truth, then form opinions on that truth.

If it comes from on line encyclopedias, blogs, and research composed by a non scholar or historian and of course Fox news (sensationalism) ha ha or psuedo journalism/media.

Then again ya gotta use common sense, read between the lines...and dont believe everything ya read.

Facts, fellow scholars and books..scientific evidence are what I use as a historian and scholar..to determine what is real and what is flagellant.

Hate to say it but I don't think Buddha was correct. Reason and common sense are reasonable starting points, but you have to objectively look at facts, evidence, and other points of view; then the real work starts.

Edit:

I should mention creditability of the source(s), repeatability by independent observers, validity of the methods used...

good quote from buddha. but i don't believe you can trust anything one hundred percent. you know there is no perfection. you can only trust so much stuff. you can do studies, research, etc. but the truth of the matter is, life is based on opinions. nothing is new under the sun. what people know now, is from what was once before. what is prior is history. we relive history. great question.