Here are the two sources I selected for this discussion:
1: https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html
2: https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/
Now, let's go through the CARS for each of them.
The speed of light one doesn't fail the credibility check, but it doesn't exactly pass it, either. The author is not anonymous, and has a background in science, but it's ecology, not physics. The Monty Hall one, I think, fails the credibility check, as I could not find an author.
Both are fairly accurate, the Monty Hall one even having a minigame where you yourself play through the scenario. The light-speed one was posted only one year ago, though the Monty Hall one was posted six years ago (though, I don't think fundamental aspects of statistics tend to change over time).
Both are also reliable, being internally consistent, and speaking about scientific facts that have long since been proven true, and on that point, they are also both well-supported by evidence from the larger scientific community.
My sources help establish a "so what" by explaining aspects of math and science that would otherwise seem counterintuitive to a layperson, thus establishing an idea that intuition is not a replacement for science. It also helps spark a curiosity in the reader, a curiosity of why things are the way they are. Why is there a speed limit on the universe? Why is it better to switch doors in the Monty Hall problem?
Comments
Post a Comment