{"ops":[{"insert":"Some of the key points from this podcast are as follows:\n−      Information is used whenever we reason\n−      Information itself is neutral until you apply the Standards of Reasoning. Applying the Standards to information requires evaluating what information is important for the stated purpose and associated questions - judging the clarity, precision, accuracy, relevance, significance, breadth and depth of the information as adequate/appropriate/reasonable/etc.\n−      Other terms for “information” include facts, data, evidence, observations, and experiences. Often the problem is how you look at (in the case of observations) and interpret information that can be limited either due to inadequacy of your knowledge (e.g. concepts) to fully understand the information or due to conscious or unconscious bias related to your point of view.\n−      Experience as a source of information can lead us astray. Here I think it is also worth noting that disregarding experience, for example when quantitative research evidence is given ascendency over qualitative evidence (e.g. phenomenology), can also result in incomplete information regarding an issue.)\n−      Information must also be synthesized with other information to determine how it fits together. \n−      Evaluating information against the Standards, as with evaluating all Elements of reasoning, takes practice and time.\n\nIn the discussion that “Hypotheses” are not included as an Element it was stated that this is because they are contained in other Elements such as Assumptions and Conclusions. Here I think it is worth considering when one term may suit the context better than another. For example, when facilitating reasoning in health professionals it is important to encourage the use of “hypotheses” rather than “conclusions” as this tends to promote openness and continued search for alternative explanations.\n\n"}]}