ARTICLE REBUTTAL: Can we trust what we read?
ARTICLE REBUTTAL: Can we trust what we read?
ARTICLE REBUTTAL: Can we trust what we read?
When reading an article people do not normally question the credibility, reliability, validity or the fallacies of what is being read. People are constantly exposed to information through media outlets such as radio, internet, and/or television. But where does the public draw the line on what they can trust? Readers rely on the author to give them correct information. The article “What Two Pediatricians Say NOT to worry about” written by Dr. Swanson and Dr. McCarthy is not a credible, reliable or valid source that has fallacies.
Credibility of article
Credibility is defined by the dictionary as the quality of being believed or trusted. Dr. Swanson and Dr. McCarthy are two pediatricians who are friends. The article is not a credible source, because the pediatricians are an interested party. They have listed their twitter domains to gain popularity in their business. In addition, the unknown experience of each pediatrician results in question of each doctor’s credibility. There is not enough information on Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Swanson to validate what they are saying is accurate.
Validity of information
In order for an article to be valid, the writer must have some sort of foundation of its work. The first point doctors make include, “if your baby gets a little bump there, chances are she'll be fine”, referring to the soft spot on top on the head. The statement used by the doctors does not make this a valid source. The pediatricians do not provide concrete evidence that this is something one should not worry about, because they are giving a probability instead of an actuality. Furthermore, the second point made by Dr. McCarthy states, “Taking a fever away doesn't make your child heal quicker; in fact, the opposite may be true”, but yet later she states a parent/caregiver should contact a doctor if the child has had a fever of 102 or higher for more than a day.
ARTICLE REBUTTAL: Can we trust what we read?
When reading an article people do not normally question the credibility, reliability, validity or the fallacies of what is being read. People are constantly exposed to information through media outlets such as radio, internet, and/or television. But where does the public draw the line on what they can trust? Readers rely on the author to give them correct information. The article “What Two Pediatricians Say NOT to worry about” written by Dr. Swanson and Dr. McCarthy is not a credible, reliable or valid source that has fallacies.
Credibility of article
Credibility is defined by the dictionary as the quality of being believed or trusted. Dr. Swanson and Dr. McCarthy are two pediatricians who are friends. The article is not a credible source, because the pediatricians are an interested party. They have listed their twitter domains to gain popularity in their business. In addition, the unknown experience of each pediatrician results in question of each doctor’s credibility. There is not enough information on Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Swanson to validate what they are saying is accurate.
Validity of information
In order for an article to be valid, the writer must have some sort of foundation of its work. The first point doctors make include, “if your baby gets a little bump there, chances are she'll be fine”, referring to the soft spot on top on the head. The statement used by the doctors does not make this a valid source. The pediatricians do not provide concrete evidence that this is something one should not worry about, because they are giving a probability instead of an actuality. Furthermore, the second point made by Dr. McCarthy states, “Taking a fever away doesn't make your child heal quicker; in fact, the opposite may be true”, but yet later she states a parent/caregiver should contact a doctor if the child has had a fever of 102 or higher for more than a day.