Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Philosophy

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Information literacy scholar Michael Caulfield came to realize that the methods of research taught by librarians and information literacy educators often did not work well for students. Typically, students are encouraged to assess the quality of information using an acronym like CRAAP: currency, relevancy, authority, accuracy, and purpose. But these criteria are not always useful in spotting misinformation turned up through search engines. After all, many sources that provide misinformation appear current and relevant and are generated by organizations that appear to be authoritative while they conceal a hidden agenda.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	To find out how students evaluate sources they find on Google, Caulfield relies on the empirical research of Sam Wineburg and Sarah Mcgrew (2016). The researchers compared the behavior of Stanford University students to trained fact-checkers at newspapers and magazines. Not surprisingly, the online fact-checkers used search engines more effectively. Based on this research, Caulfield developed his own protocol to make students better researchers.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The first thing to know about using a search engine like Google is that results are not ranked by authority, accuracy, or relevance. Internet companies are notoriously secretive about the algorithms (mathematical procedural rules) they use to generate search engine results, but we know that they prioritize paid advertisements, popularity, and web interconnectivity (the degree to which key words and links from a website are shared with other websites). Thus, websites interested in sharing misinformation can use the same search engine optimization tools that legitimate companies or media sources use to move up the ranks of search results. So you need to learn to use the search engine to your advantage. Caulfield recommends using the acronym <OpenstaxTerm>SIFT</OpenstaxTerm>, or the “four moves” of student fact checkers.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/1cc8a5da53ce1d2190ce3a853d765dc78029547a" alt="An infographic shows the capitalized letters, S, I, F, and T. Under the S is a stop sign and the word “stop.” Under the I is a magnifying glass and the words “Investigate the source.” Under the F is a check mark and the words “find better coverage.” Under the T is a flow chart with the words “trace claims, quotes, and media to the original context." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="427" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	Figure 2.6 The four moves for student fact checkers: stop; investigate the source; find better coverage; and trace the claims to the original context. (credit: “SIFT (The Four Moves)” by Michael Caulfield/hapgood.us, CC BY 4.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Stop</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The first move reiterates something we have already discussed: to become a better critical thinker, slow down the quick and efficient thinking that leads to errors and engage in critical reflection and metacognition. By stopping, slowing down, or taking your time to allow for critical reflection, you will be using rational and reflective thinking to assess claims. Additionally, after some searching, you will want stop, return to your original source, and check its claims again. When you circle back after going down a bit of a rabbit hole, you will have a new perspective from which to evaluate these claims.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Investigate the Source</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Next, investigate the source of your information. Internet searches will often lead you through a series of links, in which you jump from one document to another. Strive to understand this electronic paper trail. Who wrote each document? What are their credentials? You can prioritize academic sources, such as web pages of philosophy faculty members, and you can discount sites that aggregate student papers or provide content without clear authorship. But investigating authorship does not mean that you should just read the “About” page on a website. Rather, Wineburg and Mcgrew (2016) found that fact-checkers used search tools to check the reputation of the sites they were investigating, a move they called “reading laterally.” You do not have to spend a lot of time on the site itself. Instead, search reviews or critiques of the website and the authors on the site. Find out what other authoritative sources say about the site. Is this a website that is approved by other people you trust? Or do people you trust indicate that the website or its information are questionable?
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Find Better Coverage</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Check the claims and information on the site you are reading. What do other sources say about the same information? Is there other coverage on the same topic? This move is particularly important for controversial claims you might find on social media, where the original source is frequently obscured. Is this information being covered elsewhere, and does the coverage agree with what you have read? This move can help in evaluating your original source or gaining familiarity with the claims being made. If the claims by one source do not match up with what you are reading elsewhere, be skeptical.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Trace Claims, Quotes, and Media to the Original Context</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Frequently, claims made on the internet are divorced from their original context. It is important to trace those claims back to the original source. This advice holds for online research in philosophy. You may discover a claim or quote about a philosopher that lacks context. To evaluate the claim, you need its original context, which will reveal whether the claim or quote was mischaracterized or portrayed in a misleading way. Look for citations, and then follow those citations to the original publication. If the source you have found does not have citations, then you will need to search key terms or phrases in quotation marks to see if you can locate the claim or quote using another method. Good academic sources ought to provide citations so you can verify the original source of the claim. If it is hard to verify a claim or quote, that should be a red flag to not trust the source making those claims or providing those quotes.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxNote>
	<OpenstaxNoteTitle> Think Like a Philosopher </OpenstaxNoteTitle> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Here are three examples of claims made online. Use the four moves to assess whether these claims are true. You have been provided with a screen capture of a headline, so you do not have links back to a website. Therefore, use search tools on the web to verify the claims being made. In each case, find a source that either verifies or debunks the claim. The source you use to verify or debunk the claim should be reputable and authoritative.
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Mexico’s Border Wall
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		This post claims to be picture of fencing from Mexico’s southern border. Is the photo accurate? Is this an image of Mexico’s southern border? Has the Mexican government constructed a wall to prevent the flow of migrants from across its southern border?
	</OpenstaxParagraph><OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00002" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/0fbfbcbaf9fd55117f9660a68aa40d8f11f5ea53" alt="A long stretch of fence in a desert landscape with a caption beneath that reads: “This is the Border Fence Mexico built on their border with Guatemala to keep out freeloaders. Notice The Barbed Wire and Towers with Armed Guards. Shouldn’t the United States have the same right as Mexico to protect its border?”" mediaType="image/jpeg" width="675" height="702" />
	<OpenstaxFigureText width="675">
		Figure 2.7 This social media image claims to show a wall Mexico constructed on its southern border. (credit: “Mexico’s Border Wall?” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC BY 4.0)
	</OpenstaxFigureText>
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Smart Toilet?
	</OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		This image was shared on the web. Is it a real product or satire?
	</OpenstaxParagraph><OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00003" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/523fdd4fa1d5c657f28154bcfdb40d0213ff1e79" alt="A rectangular toilet next to a sink with a caption that reads “Alexa is everywhere: Kohler’s smart toilet brings voice assistant to bathroom.”" mediaType="image/jpeg" width="675" height="616" />
	<OpenstaxFigureText width="675">
		Figure 2.8 This web headline about Kohler’s smart toilet, under the heading “Smart Home,” suggests that Kohler’s has invented a smart toilet that uses Alexa. (credit: “Alexa Smart Toilet” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC BY 4.0)
	</OpenstaxFigureText>
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		Drilling Stonehenge?
	</OpenstaxParagraph><OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00004" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/0762d5ea81b03bf9213c104c72c7ec2490494ffb" alt="An online newspaper website called The Sun features a headline reading: “Groan Henge: Blundering road workers drill a hole into 6000-year-old site near Stonehenge in tests for controversial tunnel.” The small print below the headline reads: “A huge hole has been drilled through the archaeological site as part of controversial plans to build a tunnel under the tourist hot spot.”" mediaType="image/jpeg" width="675" height="595" />
	<OpenstaxFigureText width="675">
		Figure 2.9 This newspaper headline claims that engineers drilled a hole into Stonehenge as part of a controversial tunnel project. (credit: “Stonehenge damaged by blundering engineers?” by Michael Caulfield/fourmoves.blog, CC BY 4.0)
	</OpenstaxFigureText>
</OpenstaxNote>

2.4.2 The SIFT Method (Four Moves for Student Fact Checkers)

1 Introduction to Philosophy

1.1 What Is Philosophy?

1.1.1 Historical Origins of Philosophy

1.1.2 How It All Hangs Together

1.2 How Do Philosophers Arrive at Truth?

1.2.1 Sources of Evidence

1.2.2 Logic

1.2.3 Conceptual Analysis

1.2.4 Trade-offs

1.3 Socrates as a Paradigmatic Historical Philosopher

1.3.1 “The Life Which Is Unexamined Is Not Worth Living”

1.3.2 Human Wisdom Is Worth Little or Nothing

1.3.3 The Importance of Doing No Harm

1.4 An Overview of Contemporary Philosophy

1.4.1 What Can You Do with a Philosophy Major?

1.4.2 An Overview of Your Philosophy Textbook

2 Critical Thinking, Research, Reading, and Writing

2.1 The Brain Is an Inference Machine

2.1.1 The Brain’s Adaptive Ability to Plan Ahead

2.1.2 The Evolutionary Advantage of Shortcuts

2.2 Overcoming Cognitive Biases and Engaging in Critical Reflection

2.2.1 Critical Reflection and Metacognition

2.2.2 Cognitive Biases

2.3 Developing Good Habits of Mind

2.3.1 Strive for Objectivity

2.3.2 Adopt Epistemic Humility

2.4 Gathering Information, Evaluating Sources, and Understanding Evidence

2.4.1 Start with a Strong Foundation

2.5 Reading Philosophy

2.5.1 Prepare to Read

2.5.2 Engaging with Philosophical Texts

2.5.3 Pre-reading

2.5.4 First Read

2.5.5 Close Read

2.6 Writing Philosophy Papers

2.6.1 Identify Claims

2.6.2 Collect Evidence and Build Your Case

2.6.3 Organize Your Paper

3 The Early History of Philosophy around the World

3.1 Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.1 Challenges in Researching Indigenous Philosophy

3.1.2 Indigenous African Philosophy

3.1.3 Indigenous North American Philosophical Thought

3.1.4 Mesoamerican Philosophy

3.2 Classical Indian Philosophy

3.2.1 The Vedic Tradition

3.2.2 Classical Indian Darshanas

3.3 Classical Chinese Philosophy

3.3.1 Early Chinese Philosophical Thought prior to Confucius

3.3.2 Confucianism

3.3.3 Daoism

3.3.4 Mohism

4 The Emergence of Classical Philosophy

4.1 Historiography and the History of Philosophy

4.1.1 Presentist Approach

4.1.2 Contextualist Approach

4.1.3 Hermeneutic Approach

4.2 Classical Philosophy

4.2.1 Egyptian Origins of Classical Philosophy

4.2.2 Ancient Greek Philosophy

4.2.3 The Presocratics

4.2.4 Socrates and Plato

4.2.5 Aristotle

4.2.6 Epicureans

4.2.7 Roman Philosophy

4.3 Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.1 Defining Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Philosophy

4.3.2 Early Jewish Philosophy

4.3.3 Early Christian Philosophy

4.3.4 Islamic Philosophy

4.3.5 Late Medieval Philosophy in Christian Europe

4.3.6 Jewish Philosophers in the Christian and Islamic Worlds

4.3.7 The Rise of Reason in the Early Modern Era

5 Logic and Reasoning

5.1 Philosophical Methods for Discovering Truth

5.1.1 Dialectics and Philosophical Argumentation

5.1.2 The Use of Reason to Discover Truth

5.1.3 Testing Hypotheses

5.1.4 Laws of Logic

5.1.5 Normativity in Logic

5.2 Logical Statements

5.2.1 Conditionals

5.2.2 Universal Statements

5.3 Arguments

5.3.1 Getting to the Premises

5.3.2 The Difference between Truth and Logic

5.4 Types of Inferences

5.4.1 Deductive Reasoning

5.4.2 Inductive Inferences

5.4.3 Abductive Reasoning

5.5 Informal Fallacies

5.5.1 Fallacies of Relevance

5.5.2 Fallacies of Weak Induction

5.5.3 Fallacies of Unwarranted Assumption

5.5.4 Fallacies of Diversion

6 Metaphysics

6.1 Substance

6.1.1 Fundamentality: The One and the Many

6.1.2 Ontological Perspectives on Substance