What makes misinformation misinformation is that it's factually wrong, not that the reasoning processes underlying it are bad.
Yes, and identifying it is a reasoning process, which they are claiming to teach.
It would be quite suspicious if "global warming is real" and "global warming is not real" were two equally credible positions. As it happens, they aren't.
Duh.
You can't say "X is an instance of disinformation" without making it clear that you believe not-X.
Sure, but there's more than one X at play. You can believe, for example, that "the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real" is false and that would imply that you believe not-"the overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real". You're still completely free to believe that global warming is real.
I think you have, actually.
"What about the misinformation on the atheist side!" is evidence that someone is a creationist to the extent that they cannot separate their beliefs from their principles of reason (which usually people cannot do).
If someone is actually capable of the kind of honesty where they hold their own side to the same standards as the outgroup side, it is no longer evidence of which side they're on. You're assuming I don't hold my own side to the same standards. That's fine, but you're wrong. I'd have the same complaints if it were a campaign to "teach them creationist folk how not to be duped by misinformation", and I am absolutely not a creationist by any means.
I can easily give an example, if you'd like.
If so, then I fear you have been taken in by the rhetoric of the "skeptics"[1] who are very keen to portray the issue as one where it's reasonable to take either side,
Nothing I am saying is predicated on there being more than one "reasonable" side.
where taking for granted that global warming is real is proof of dishonesty or incompetence, etc
If you take for granted a true thing, it is not proof of dishonesty or incompetence.
However, if you take it for granted and say that there's only one reasonable side, then it is proof that you're looking down on the other side. That's fine too, if you're ready to own that.
It just becomes dishonest when you try to pretend that you're not. It becomes dishonest when you say "I'm just helping you spot misinformation, that's all" when what you're really trying to do is make sure that they believe Right thoughts like you do, so they don't fuck up your society by being stupid and wrong.
There's a difference between helping someone reason better and helping someone come to the beliefs that you believe in, even when you are correct. Saying that you're doing the former while doing the latter is dishonest, and it doesn't help if most people fail to make the distinction (or if you somehow can't fathom that I might be making the distinction myself and criticizing them for honesty rather than for disagreeing with me)
identifying it is a reasoning process, which they are claiming to teach.
I don't think they are. Teaching people to reason is really hard. They describe what they're trying to do as "inoculation", and what they're claiming to have is not a way of teaching general-purpose reasoning skills that would enable people to identify misinformation of all kinds but a way of conveying factual information that makes people less likely to be deceived by particular instances of misinformation.
..."What about the misinformation on the atheist side!" i
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "