The Fallacy Of Two Sources
Some time ago, I was queried by someone about an article I’d published, which I can no longer recall. Have you checked the facts against two sources he asked, or said, or something like that. I told him no. This is one of the biggest fallacies of so-called journalism, reporting, etc. If two sources are good, surely fifty must be exponentially better, no? Like the fifty so-called Intelligence professionals who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop had all the hallmarks of Russian disinformation?
What about the procession of liars and idiots who proclaim endlessly the innocence of murderer and serial rapist Rodney Reed? Although there are more, only one source is needed to convict that lowlife of the murder of Stacey Stites, the forensic evidence, in particular the saliva he drooled over her lifeless body.
Clearly, one honest, accurate source is better than a plethora of liars, even if they are only, or claim to be, voicing their professional opinions rather than documented facts.
Of course, sometimes the one source may be dishonest; a murder suspect might be telling the gospel truth, or he might be telling a pack of lies. It always helps if the information from the one source can be confirmed in some way, even in less dramatic circumstances.