Critical thinking in the face of the example of #MeToo? What they don't tell you about critical thinking and what prevents you from exercising it.

You are often told that you need to cross-check sources, I read it again this morning. But this has a major implication: that for a reasoning or information to be accepted or true, you need multiple sources.

AND right now, to get you interested in the subject, think about "whistleblowers". You know, those who are the first to denounce something... But we'll come back to that!

It's not because you have a majority of people saying or thinking something and presenting it in the same way that what they say is true. Or that there is only one "visible" person denouncing it that it is false.

It's up to you to realize the sheepishness...

Think about whistleblowers. At first there was only one... at first no one wanted to believe him. It was too big to be true... And yeah...

Here are a few examples to refresh your memory: (thanks to the chat)

🎭 Harvey Weinstein & MeToo... It took just one woman, Rose McGowan, to break the omerta. For decades, Hollywood knew, but kept quiet.

🖥 Edward Snowden... In 2013, he revealed to the world the mass surveillance carried out by the NSA. At the time, people were shouting conspiracy. Today, no one doubts that our data is being spied on.

📂 Frances Haugen (Facebook Files)... Ex-employee of Meta, she reveals how Facebook favors toxic and addictive content, knowingly.

💊 John Kopchinski (Paxil – Big Pharma)... He reveals how GlaxoSmithKline illegally pushed a dangerous antidepressant on children, hiding the suicide risks.

This list could be long, very long.

Ultimately, we are always in the same principle, many knew, but it's just that they didn't say it for a whole series of interests or risks.

You know: losing your job or not finding one anymore, your reputation, being accused of lying, being prosecuted.

The responsibility of those who remain silent?

Wow... too dangerous a subject, I wouldn't venture there. I would just say that whoever knows of a crime, a malfeasance, without denouncing it, is also guilty of being part of the situation, at the very least. But, I am idealistic...even if there are contexts of denunciation that pose problems, obviously.

And remember one thing, that disinformation also hides within the means of fighting disinformation that are proposed to you.

And yes, fake news articles, scientific research to sow doubt on a subject, I'm not going to give you the lecture on what the tobacco industry tried in the good old days, am I?

The methods do not change, only the subjects evolve. After tobacco, we had the lobbies of oil, pharma, social networks... Who's next? Me, at the moment, I'm tackling in my various articles the skills assessment, which, believe it or not, is causing invisible but very real damage.

So remember one thing when you use your critical thinking. Also, pay attention to reflect on the elements presented and the demonstration, sometimes it's not because there is only one person telling you something too big to be true, without scientific study to support it, that it is not partly true. And that it doesn't hold up.