Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

But I drank plenty of pineapple juice so she was still cool with it.

Can y'all move your discussions of water management to the politics thread, or the weather climate & environment thread, or literally anywhere else?

I think Mike had intended this to be a bit of a philosophical thread, and while it might drift here or there, sniping at each other about damn dams is not really the idea here.

• Is your opinion falsifiable?  Do you know what that principle means, and if so, what's your standard of falsifiability?  What would you need to see, or what facts taken in context would make you say "What I thought is wrong?"  Is there a valid and reliable way to test your belief?  (Validity and reliability are two of the most important metrics in statistical analysis, and I think there's carry-over in this area.)  If so, have you done it? 
• Do multiple sources report a fact?  (obvious, no explanation needed)
• Do you at least spot-check primary sources?  If so, did the news report's claim hold up?  For history stuff, this could be original letters, ancient "primary" history accounts, or other primary documents.  For legal stories it could be reviewing court cases or executive orders.  (I'm lucky....my years as a landman taught me to read lawyer-speak pretty well without being a lawyer).  If a particular source has proven, over time and over multiple spot-checks, to have accurately relayed what they claim from other, primary sources, you're justified in loosening up on your skepticism of that source.  i.e., there are people whose word I take a lot more readily now, without "doing my own research," more than I once would've, because they hardly ever miss, that I can tell. 
• Have you sought to develop critical thinking skills?  Are you good at philosophy, logical thinking, and spotting logical fallacies?  Do you interrogate a story as it's being told to you?  (skepticism)

• Do you read or listen to sources that have opposing viewpoints to your own?
• When considering others' opinions, does it have good explanatory scope and good explanatory power? (two common tools for historians.)  Explanatory scope = explains all the facts, explanatory power = explains the facts well. 
• Does the speaker or a person being interviewed have a vested interest?  Are they pushing a book?  Are they suddenly making the rounds on all the news shows and podcasts and starting to act like a celebrity?  Are they finding ways to stay in the spotlight?  Or are they staying low-key and not trying to make a career out of being a public opinion person?  (this is in no way conclusive, bear in mind, it's just one tool in the toolbox.  If a person sounds credible but then I start seeing them everywhere and seeming to profit off their hot takes, I get suspicious.  If a person is interviewed who comes off like they're just pleading to get their story out there, I'm inclined to view it more favorably.)
• Eye-witnesses are good evidence, but know what makes a good eye-witness.  (Sorry, the further explanation for that is way longer than I'm ever going to type out.)  i.e., I frequently listen to a podcast where the guy often discusses the Russia-Ukraine war.  His academic training is Russo-European history, he's traveled extensively all around the globe and particularly that area, and has spent an enormous amount of time in Ukraine dealing with their government when he adopted his now-daughter from the Ukrainian orphanage system, and written books about all of it.  So for example, when he comments on the Russia-Ukraine war, I'm reasonably justified in weighting what he says heavier than some desk anchor who's never been anywhere and may know nothing for themselves first-hand.  It's not a free pass, I'm just saying, I am likely to be less skeptical (until enough time has passed and he shows to be reliable). 
• Does a person have people on their show with different viewpoints?  It's hard to trust someone who only ever has people on who agree with them.  It's better, and more telling, when someone has on opposition and will spar with them and both of them let it all out there.  BUT: bear in mind controlled opposition is always a possibility. 
• Does a person ever say anything good about politicians they don't like?  Or anything bad about politicians they do like?  Chances are very slim that a person thinking for themself has no agreements or disagreements with someone else--that would be strange and statistically unlikely.  If that happens, I'm inclined to regard them as shills or an antagonist for the sake of antagonizing. 
• Do they ever admit they were wrong when something they've said has been widely and publicly shown to be false?  You can't imagine how many people I've weeded out with this one.  If they can't or won't do this, they're not honestly trying to inform you.  They're hacks. 
• Do they act like experts in all matters?  Do they ever say "I don't know a lot about that?"  Chances are uber-slim a person is really an expert in everything they talk about. 

Excellent work BTW. I'd highlight two things:

This is something you have to be VERY careful with. If one source reports a fact and then multiple sources report what that source reported--which is AMAZINGLY common in the modern internet age--then you still truly only have one source.

Good one from Existential Comics on utilitarianism.

And a good reason why utilitarianism is an incomplete philosophy, that potentially makes it incompatible with human nature.

If the sadist's enjoyment of hurting someone exceeds the victim's displeasure at being hurt, does that make hurting them justifiable? I would certainly [and strongly!] argue no.

There's that, and then there's the chaos theory aspect of it.  Utilitarianism says, in a nutshell, we should do whatever leads to the best outcome in the long run.  Assume for a moment we could agree on "best outcome"--which as you and this cartoon point out is not a given--it still has a major flaw.  Philosophically and empirically, there's a ton of evidence that we are not in a good position to know what will lead to the best possible outcome over time.  We can make some reasonable predictions on a few things in the short term.  But we even get a lot of that wrong.  Extend the time period, we're basically worthless as prognosticators in the face of the butterfly effect. 

Utilitarianism has faced some withering critiques for those very reasons, and imo, hasn't really withstood them well.  Not a great basis for a system of ethics.