Almost daily, online, in “the real world,” in books and other media, I encounter folks making assertions based solely because someone else they accepted as authoritative said such and so.
Frequently “such and so” ain’t necessarily so. . . and the authority depended upon knows it full well.
Do your own homework.
I used to research topics by seeking out voices people I trusted about other things recognized as authoritative. Now, those “voices” could be texts by multiple authors, single authors, institutional proclamations or whatever, but even then, I always at least performed a rough “gut check” concerning what was said.
That was not enough.
Example:
Late on, though in early young adulthood, I began to see strange things in an acclaimed and widely accepted compilation of various ancient texts into one text likely to be “closest” to original source texts available only in fragments, performed by widely-recognized and respected historical-literary-linguistic critics and translators. The strange thing I noticed was that pieces of texts selected from various manuscripts sometimes did not follow, not even at all closely, the principles of historical-literary-linguistic criticism that the compilers clearly claimed to use in compilation. In fact, whole sentences, paragraphs, passages of what the compilers claimed to be the oldest, most reliable texts available were sliced and diced, with bits and pieces of manuscripts and passages the compilers themselves labeled as less reliable!
“Why?” I asked myself. Now, what I did in this particular case ran close to an ad hominem fallacy, but I believe I skirted that fallacy just to the side of legitimacy. What did I do in this case? I read the compilers’ own statements about their personal beliefs and, lo and behold! those beliefs were always reflected in the passages where they violated their own criteria!
Now, does this completely invalidate their work? No. I still use the text they compiled, but I do so fully aware of its flaws and fully aware of the legitimate readings of the text that simply disagree with the compilers’ own biases. I can, and do, make my own assessment of what texts are valid using both the compilers’ strict guidelines (which they asserted–falsely–that they followed) and older and newer scholarship to guide my decisions.
Now, is this an earth-shattering issue? For some, yes. For me, no. I do however much refer honesty in such things, and so my respect for the work of these scholars is seriously diminished, and as a result, I always squint a bit with a skeptic’s eye when I examine their work. Rightly so, I believe.
I know a great many others who simply and blindly and uncritically accept their work as “gospel”–the last word on the subject. They’ll do no serious harm, but I believe they’d do far, far more good were they to DO THEIR OWN HOMEWORK!
And so it is in life in general. Uncritically accept as “gospel” whatever a teacher, Mass MEdia Podperson, preacher, politician or even doctor tells me? No, never. I examine what they write/say and try to verify their facts and reasoning. Actually, more useful, I’ve recently discovered, is to use a principal scientific principle and attempt to falsify their message. If I cannot and instead find verification, I can at least provisionally work forward using the information as a basis for my own acts. If, however, their assertions/report is falsifiable by me, using the best sources I can discover, then I can place those assertions in the circular file. If falsification is rock solid (pertinent, verifiable text, audio or video that falsifies, along with sound reasoning), then that teacher, Mass MEdia Podperson, preacher, politician or even doctor really, really ought to recant, because if not, as far as I’m concerned, they’re toast.
There you have it: a non-rigorous proposal, with anecdotal commentary, for why one ought to do one’s own homework, especially before opening one’s mouth to provide proof of one’s status as a fool.
Just sayin’.
