One of the challenges of the information age is knowing what to trust. Today, it isn’t hard to find information. But it can be difficult to know whether that information is accurate. People tend to trust information when it appears in writing, when it has an attractive appearance, and especially when the information supports views they already hold and want to believe. In the age of the Internet and social media, none of these is a very good reason for trusting information. Instead, people should look at information with healthy skepticism, a mild hesitation to accept information as true until it has been checked out.
Healthy skepticism is a disposition that occupies the sensible space between gullibility and cynicism, both unhealthy levels of skepticism. A person exhibits healthy skepticism when they ask questions about the information they receive:
- Who is behind the information?
- How do they know?
- What do they have to gain by sharing this information?
- What information might they be withholding?
- Could this person be exaggerating or lying?
- What information are other sources giving?
- What parts of their account are likely accurate, given other evidence I have?
- What parts of their account are likely to be inaccurate?
In contrast to the person with healthy skepticism, the cynic believes that just because a person can’t believe everything they hear, they can’t believe anything that they hear. This view is as dangerous as the view of the person who accepts everything as true without a critical thought.
Additionally, a person with healthy skepticism monitors their own reaction to information and asks whether their own biases are leading them to accept unvetted information or to reject something that may be accurate. In contrast, some people’s standard for vetting information, often applied subconsciously, is whether the information agrees with what they already believe. Healthy skepticism involves introspection and awareness of our own perspectives. Further, a person with healthy skepticism is careful not to share information with others until they have investigated it for themself, even when it promotes a view they support.
Healthy skepticism is not only vital in a day when most people learn information about current events from the Internet and social media but is also essential in historical inquiry. The inquiries on these webpages provide students with many opportunities to engage in healthy skepticism.
Healthy Skepticism Example
For example, in the inquiry on the Bear River Massacre found here, a Shoshone account from Henry Woonsook claims that the Shoshone had only bows and arrows. In contrast, the leader of the American soldiers, Colonel Conner, claims that the Shoshone were well armed with plenty of ammunition. This inquiry promotes healthy skepticism, as the students are placed in a situation where they can’t believe both accounts at face value. Something has to give.
Substantial evidence exists in the other documents that make it clear that Conner was lying. But what about Woonsook’s account? Did the Shoshone have only bows and arrows as he claims? These are the kinds of questions that the healthy skeptic asks. The soldier casualty list, also in the mini-archives included in the inquiry, helps answer this question. It shows that scores of soldiers were wounded and more than a dozen killed by being shot. Most historians today believe that the Shoshone had some guns and ammunition and that after a brief and violent battle with the Shoshone using bows and arrows and some guns, the massacre took place. So was Woonsook lying? Probably not. His account focused more on the massacre that occurred after the Shoshone’s ammunition had been exhausted. Does the healthy skeptic trust the casualty list without critical evaluation? No. Although there is little reason to doubt the relative accuracy of the casualty list, a person with healthy skepticism will point out that the army officials did not make any attempt to record the names of the Shoshone victims of the massacre. Why didn’t they make a reliable record of the Shoshone who perished?