Possible Sources of Information

Possible Sources of Information

Francisco C. Castro

A big part of what we know have been communicated or handed down to us by others, like parents, teachers, newspapers, books, etc. The information that we know originate from different sources. Let us try “categorizing” some of them:

• Let us name one, the “eyewitness”. What the “eyewitness” knows seems to be credible and believable. We believe in the report of the eyewitness inasmuch as the “eyewitness” is a “first-hand” source of information.
• Then there is the source of information derived from someone who is an “insider”. The insider has not seen or directly experienced the event witnessed by the “eyewitness”, but we still might think that the “insider” is a credible source. The “insider”, we say, should "know it better" because he or she is “closer” to the event that any of us.
• Then there is the opinion based on facts collected from some source or another … arranged and grouped according to a system of interpretation. This knowledge comes from someone we shall call as “analyst”. The “analyst” is neither an “eyewitness” nor an “insider”. But the “analyst” has access to the information from an “insider” or even an “eyewitness”.
• Then there is someone we shall call as the “commentator”. The “commentator” is someone who has read or heard from the “analyst”. The “commentator” may have gathered a lot of materials from many sources of information; and he or she may have sorted them out. The “commentator” is not an “eyewitness”, not an “insider”, not even an “analyst”. The “commentator” is already far from the event. He or she might even have to rely a lot on books and websites to frame an opinion. He or she might even have to be creative in concluding an opinion.
• Finally, there is someone who we shall call as the “gossiper”. We know that gossip is a statement whose reliability and truth is not confirmed. It is not a reliable source of information but it can be persuasive. The “gossiper” is not an “eyewitness”, not an “insider”, not an “analyst” and not a “commentator”. The “gossiper” makes a statement whose source is anonymous and cannot be verified.

Our “categories” are a bit crude but hopefully they can help. They show zones of proximity and distance, zones that are very close to events and zones that are distant. The closer we are to the “eyewitness”, the closer we are to the actual fact. The closer we are to the “gossiper”, the farther we are from the actual fact.

But why do we believe in derived information? Here is one reply: I believe because if I were in the “shoes” of others, I suppose that I would have the same experience as they had. Others believe in their experiences; so I suppose that “in their shoes” I would believe the same.

Following this line, we allow ourselves to consider the weights of our sources. If we know that the source is an “eyewitness”, then really we know what it means to be in his or her shoes. We weight statements made. If the source is a “gossiper”, then we would be careful in assenting to a belief.

However, in daily life we are often not very inquisitive about our sources. We do not always go about checking the objectivity of our sources.

To a certain extent we rely a lot more on what is “approved”. Any knowledge receives additional weight if it is accepted not only by ourselves but by others, especially those we trust a lot. What I believe in as true, correct and beyond doubt is what others corroborate, others like my parents, teachers, the parish priest, the neighborhood charlatan who is my friend, the boss of my uncle, etc.

The power of social approval can play a central role in what we conceive as true. I may not have full information, but I believe in a given information because it is what my “peer group”, “my neighbors”, “my friends”, “persons I admire” believe in. My accent of belief relies on their approval.

Socially approved knowledge is so authoritative; it influences the effort to access objective information. Polls, interviews, and questionnaires try to see the opinion of “gossipers”, for example, who do not even seek for objectivity. The opinions of “gossipers” can and often do attain the status of being socially approved at the expense of informed opinion.

This is why “gossipers” are a risky source when they are considered the main source of public opinion. “Gossipers” have no direct access to the actual event. We cannot be assured of the veracity of their statements. Yet, their statements can have authority because they are approved. Eventually, we might have a society wherein everyone “gossips” as if what everyone says is objectively true.

The prestige given to the opinion of the “gossiper” can pose a danger. It is the duty and the privilege, therefore, of the well informed citizen to make her or his views prevail over public opinion based on “gossip”.