In reality, as we go through our daily lives, it is likely rare for the average individual to stop and think how we actually know or acquired the information that we communicate to others on a regular basis, both in our spoken words as well as in the written environment. We also don’t typically stop and take time to consider the possible influence our communications may have on others and the sometimes-inaccurate information we might be foisting upon those individuals about the various topics of our communications with them. While questioning sources is often a good idea, and maybe even required in some situations, there is little doubt that it is simply not practical to stop and question everything we hear or even witness on a daily basis. If so, it is quite likely we would never be doing anything else, but rather much of our communication time would instead revolve around questioning and discovery. Not to mention that our spouses, close friends and acquaintances (for example), might get a bit irritated with us constantly asking for proof and sources every time they communicated with us about some topic!

So, this then leads us to an important question of exactly how we should approach and determine the truth, fact or fiction, or determine trustworthy and accuracy of information that we are often bombarded with daily. If I may offer a suggestion at this juncture, I personally have found a useful guide to helping understand the topic of gaining support for ones communications in one of the texts that I use to instruct in my research class that I would like to share with you, written by Michael Maxfiled and Earl Babbi titled “Basics of Research Methods” (2012) to help further guide our conversation. The authors begin by expressing to us there are two realities we should consider, which are:
• Experiential reality – the things we know from direct experience (touching a stove)
• Agreement reality – things we consider real because we have been told they are real, and everyone agrees (sun sets in the West)

The first reality is true (at least to us) because we directly experienced them, and the example the authors provide us of touching a hot stove was simple yet effective to help us understand that for the most part what we observe in our daily lives is to us, factual. I inserted the caveat “at least to us” because quite simply in some situations it is possible two people could see the same thing and come to two different conclusions about what they just saw, however the description of touching a hot stove one would likely be hard pressed to come to a different conclusion. The second reality, agreement reality, is a bit more complicated and it is the type of reality we would consider true or factual because it comes from someone we know and trust, or perhaps it just simply “makes sense”. Again, the authors give a simple yet effective argument that the sun sets in the West as an example of agreement reality, or that its cold on the dark side of the moon. Truth be known, we often accept quite a bit of information from those who we trust or those who might have the credentials or experience to know such information that is provided to us. In everyday life, it is beneficial to accept some of this information simply because it keeps us from having to discover all these truths on our own, however when this truth conflicts with something we may have experienced or know from some other source then it still would be useful to question such authority. In the classroom, this is often done (for example) by the raising of a hand to question the professor’s declarations or perhaps even a one on one meeting with the professor to clarify some comment or statement made by the professor or other resources that were used in the teaching of the classroom.

While we could continue this discussion in more detail (and we just might at a later date in another blog) my main purpose in even broaching the subject is to focus on the responsibility we have to others (students or otherwise) to be as accurate as possible when we make declarations, or what I have often termed “assertions of authority” (stating something as fact based on personal experiences or have knowledge of through formal, in depth, research of a topic). While in everyday conversations this may not be needed, or even desired (as I reviewed earlier in my comments), perhaps the small time spent on the topic here will encourage us stop and contemplate just exactly “how we know what we know” before we offer up information as fact based.

Cheers,

James “Rick” Walker

In reality, as we go through our daily lives, it is likely rare for the average individual to stop and think how we actually know or acquired the information that we communicate to others on a regular basis, both in our spoken words as well as in the written environment. We also don’t typically stop and take time to consider the possible influence our communications may have on others and the sometimes-inaccurate information we might be foisting upon those individuals about the various topics of our communications with them. While questioning sources is often a good idea, and maybe even required in some situations, there is little doubt that it is simply not practical to stop and question everything we hear or even witness on a daily basis. If so, it is quite likely we would never be doing anything else, but rather much of our communication time would instead revolve around questioning and discovery. Not to mention that our spouses, close friends and acquaintances (for example), might get a bit irritated with us constantly asking for proof and sources every time they communicated with us about some topic!

So, this then leads us to an important question of exactly how we should approach and determine the truth, fact or fiction, or determine trustworthy and accuracy of information that we are often bombarded with daily. If I may offer a suggestion at this juncture, I personally have found a useful guide to helping understand the topic of gaining support for ones communications in one of the texts that I use to instruct in my research class that I would like to share with you, written by Michael Maxfiled and Earl Babbi titled “Basics of Research Methods” (2012) to help further guide our conversation. The authors begin by expressing to us there are two realities we should consider, which are:

• Experiential reality – the things we know from direct experience (touching a stove)
• Agreement reality – things we consider real because we have been told they are real, and everyone agrees (sun sets in the West)

The first reality is true (at least to us) because we directly experienced them, and the example the authors provide us of touching a hot stove was simple yet effective to help us understand that for the most part what we observe in our daily lives is to us, factual. I inserted the caveat “at least to us” because quite simply in some situations it is possible two people could see the same thing and come to two different conclusions about what they just saw, however the description of touching a hot stove one would likely be hard pressed to come to a different conclusion. The second reality, agreement reality, is a bit more complicated and it is the type of reality we would consider true or factual because it comes from someone we know and trust, or perhaps it just simply “makes sense”. Again, the authors give a simple yet effective argument that the sun sets in the West as an example of agreement reality, or that its cold on the dark side of the moon. Truth be known, we often accept quite a bit of information from those who we trust or those who might have the credentials or experience to know such information that is provided to us. In everyday life, it is beneficial to accept some of this information simply because it keeps us from having to discover all these truths on our own, however when this truth conflicts with something we may have experienced or know from some other source then it still would be useful to question such authority. In the classroom, this is often done (for example) by the raising of a hand to question the professor’s declarations or perhaps even a one on one meeting with the professor to clarify some comment or statement made by the professor or other resources that were used in the teaching of the classroom.

While we could continue this discussion in more detail (and we just might at a later date in another blog) my main purpose in even broaching the subject is to focus on the responsibility we have to others (students or otherwise) to be as accurate as possible when we make declarations, or what I have often termed “assertions of authority” (stating something as fact based on personal experiences or have knowledge of through formal, in depth, research of a topic). While in everyday conversations this may not be needed, or even desired (as I reviewed earlier in my comments), perhaps the small time spent on the topic here will encourage us stop and contemplate just exactly “how we know what we know” before we offer up information as fact based.

Cheers,

James “Rick” Walker