Assignment ID Number AFFGEHU83939HD Type of Document Essay Writing Format APA/MLA/Harvard Academic Level Masters/University References/Sources 4 References Number of Pages 10 Pages Quality Level 100% Spacing Double
Discovery Channel Program Exercise in Support and Credibility of Experts by
Parts 1 and 2 minimum 3 pages of writing (approx. 1250 words) for
each person you research Yes, that means 6-7 pages
How can you tell which online information comes from reliable authorities? Anytime
you use someone else’s words or ideas in your writing or formal speaking you should
be aware who that person is; you can start now investigating the reliability of any
sources you are thinking of quoting or paraphrasing.
We like to think that if information is in print, it is reliable. Unfortunately, that is not
always the case. People with unjust biases and even those who want to sow hatred
find their way into print. In general, works that appear in print go through a much
more extensive vetting process than what appears online, but there are so-called
vanity presses that will publish pretty much anything if the author will pay the cost.
There are also all sorts of periodicals that express slantedand often conflicting
points of view, some of them offensive to many of us. That’s what comes of freedom
of the press.
When you go online, how can you start to weed through a list of results to find
reliable authorities? For one thing, you can learn to “read” the list of results you get
or other search engines.
Please document the following by taking screen shots and explaining in prose as you
work through your research in order to discover the possible credibility of two of the
experts from the list. Please number each part of your assignment.
1. Choose two:
Dr. Robert Folk, a geologist
Dr. Monica Grady, a meteorite specialist
Dr. Michael Persinger, neurologist and geologist
Dr. Joe Nickell, a paranormal investigator
Dr. David M. Jacobs, an historian
Dr. Jack Cohen, a reproductive biologist
Garry Wood, an ambulance driver in Edinburgh, Scotland
2. Take a screen shot of the list of links that appear. Be sure to post this and all other
screen shots in your paper. Before you click on a link, examine the first ten to fifteen
entries in the resulting list. Yes, you may use
as one source for this
assignment. Look at each URL and see what you can learn from it. Also notice any
other information that might affect your opinion of the source’s reliability or
Are there sources that you immediately trust as reliable? Which ones, and why?
Are there any that you immediately assume will present a biased perspective?
Which ones, and why?
Are there any that are completely unfamiliar to you? If so, choose two or three and
speculate what type of source each might be.
3. Now click on a couple of the sources that you trusted as being reliable. Identify exactly
who wrote the document that you have accessed. If you cannot find an author, what
does that suggest? If there is an author, search that persons name and see if you find
convincing credentials that support the assumption that he or she is qualified to write on
the subject at hand.
4. Do the same with at least two sources that you predicted would be biased. Does further
investigation support your assumption?
5. Go to at least one of the sources that were unfamiliar to you. Once you look more
closely at the source, do you find any evidence of its reliability or lack thereof? Explain.
6. Based on your research, do you think the expert is credible in his/her field? Give at
least two examples why.
Criteria 0 – 1 Points 2 – 3 Point 4 – 5 Points Total Professional communication Unprofessional communication; many errors; no APA Minor grammar, spelling, and APA errors Postings are professional and in standard written English with APA Complete addressing of assessment criteria Criteria not fully addressed Minimal response to criteria; minor aspects missing All criteria are fully addressed Evidence of critical thinking or extending information Critical thinking or extending information not evident Obvious responses to questions; little thought evident Posts demonstrate critical thinking with evidence base from research or experience Course connections. No connections provided Minimal connections provided to readings/activities Clear connections to readings/activities Submitted an overview / summary of the case selected for analysis. Also identified those procedural steps to be analyzed. Did not provide an adequate overview or summary of the selected case or failed to identify those steps to be analyzed. Provides an adequate overview or summary of the selected case and steps to be analyzed though may not be clear or complete. Case overview is clearly presented including all appropriate investigative steps to be analyzed. TOTAL /25