[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by capnq:
Even multiple sources agreeing doesn't necessarily mean a piece of information is correct.

Sometimes a source cites other sources as support, but if you trace the chains of references, you find a closed loop with everybody agreeing with each other and not mentioning any conflicting references. Groups that are pushing a political agenda are often the worst offenders here.

I had a friend in college who one discovered that a research paper she had cited had gotten the info from one of her own papers.

Then you have the "urban legends" that keep circulating even after they've been publically debunked.

Yeah, being in the 'biggest crowd' doesn't automatically make one right in politics or science or anything else. There is really no substitute for thinking for yourself. But we all have a finite amount of time and various priorities. We can't test every single thing for ourselves, so it's good to know how to evaluate authorities and sources.

People do tend to seek out confirmation of what they want to believe, and this is true even of scientists. There is very real resistance to changes of scientific world views because scientists can have vested interests, too. That's also the reason for the persistence of Urban Legends. Just like storms kick up where the right conditions exist (warm air, moisture, etc.) Urban legends appear where some topic of strong public interest (including simple prurient interest) intersects with vague public knowledge of science or statistics, or some news story that fits the public expectation better when garbled.

That's funny about finding your own paper supporting something you chose to cite.