Source vs. Argument

not sure if this will promote discussion but..

When deciding if some set of statements will convince you of the truth of something, which is more important to you?

• The source of those statements?

• The content of those statements, and the "logic" behind the argument they make?

Why?

It seems smartest and safest to go the content/logic route. Of course that means you have to understand the argument in greater detail, and I'll definitely admit to relying on a lot of sources who I generally trust to know what they are talking about when I don't know a lot of details about the subject. I'm thinking things like science and whatnot, things where there are specialists whose job it is to know about that one thing they know about.

But still, overall, content is what will feel more convincing to me because I instinctively distrust anyone who says something is what it is just because they say so.

I'd go with logic and common sense arguments. That is especially true when I personally dislike a certain source. I still do think that it should be a balance of both though. Some things...just....don't need a source, they are fixed facts known by any person with a straightforward mind. If we were to speak in a controversial topic, then sources can jump in here with a slight mix of common sense.

I'd go with logic, especially since sources can't always be trusted, though i would look at both the source and the logic before forming an opinion.