"To properly evaluate hypotheses in areas where we have no expertise, we need to set up some 'reliability criteria' that we can use to recognize a reliable source!!"

"Although we may not be able to judge the science (whether conclusions are based on complete, accurate, referenced data that has been analyzed by competent professionals), there are some warning flags we can recognize!"

"It seems to me that a reliable source should:

  • Respond to opposing ideas by rational argument, not by name calling or by attacking people or groups instead of their ideas!
  • Not substitute emotional, alarmist assertions and arm-waving for reasoned argument!
  • And, last but not least, give prominent place to uncertainties and divergent opinions!"
"Also, Lulu, the source should have no ulterior motive, hidden agenda, or axe to grind!! Its methodology and conclusions should not be manipulated to serve the aims of special interests!"
"You mean that we should be especially careful of accepting claims made by advocacy groups rather than mainstream, reputable scientific individuals or organizations!"
"Couldn't have said it better myself!!"

David J. Leveson & Wayne G. Powell