Old Style ATS, Proof & Sources

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

And what about the question of proof? Just what the hell constitutes proof?

The word "proof" gets used too often here. Most often what's presented here is evidence, evidence that often allows for varied evaluations as to whether it advances the argument or not and to what degree it does or not. I don't think there any benefits to calling "evidence" "proof".

The word "proof" has a "finality" to it and I think is too easily seen as a challenge, by people of a different mind on the topic, rather than an invitation to participate in an exploratory conversation. Calling something "evidence" rather than "proof" and inviting others to evaluate and share their evaluation of the evidence is likely to be more productive.

Of course you have those that want to sharply circumscribe what qualifies as evidence too an absurd degree, without a doubt some of the tiniest and most obnoxious of minds to be found here.

However; compared to demonstrating something is "proof," it's much easier to demonstrate convincingly to someone reasonable that something is "evidence" or to demonstrate the unreasonableness of someone who won't accept something as evidence. Demonstrating something is "proof" is much more difficult; that something is proved absolutely, outside of formal logic or mathematics, is most often impossible to establish absolutely.

See what I'm getting at?

a reply to: imwilliam

Yup I see your point. I do believe some posters cry "Proof"! in order to stop any discussion on the issue though

I fail to see what proof anyone can provide when no form of "proof" seems acceptable

This will make everyone nuts, but it's 100% valid.

Even a legitimate science study, particularly medical ones are dependent on the "amount of study subjects'. This is important because a medical study with less than roughly 5000 people can't be considered anything other than an indicator that something "might" be true or "might work".

So something I as a layperson would have considered as solid scientific proof, after a Doctor friend reamed me out and educated me, turns out not so much.


Also used to be back in the day after a FOIA garnered information that was considered "proof" but even nowadays, cause governmental agencies have various bias's and agenda's we can toss that out the window too, mostly.

The skeptical and debunking pendulum has swung so far to one end of the string almost nothing is considered conclusive anymore. Plus we as a society here on ATS are so jaded we could be slapped with the best definitive proof and still find flaws in it.

At some point we have to accept that no proof is going to be "perfect", but is as good as we're going to get pending further developments or further discoveries.

Personally I prefer science abstracts, not blogs, not press releases turned into news articles by news outlets. Most journalists DO cite the original abstract, or at least cite the authors for us to backtrack. It's just people are lazy and prefer to be spoon fed their information.

A read thru Michael Swords blog "the big study" gives you a very good sense of actual critical thinking skills to apply towards other subjects. If you were educated after about 1960 in public schools and weren't privileged to attend a Ivy League college back then, critical thinking wasn't taught.

Hate to say this but Secure Ten is a junk site.
As are most blogs and sites that just aggregate info and slap a click bait title on articles. There are some forums out there for professionals in different fields but hardly anyone causally just staggers in and reads them. Some have fees and understandably not everyone can afford those either. Jstor is a great one....just pricy, altho I think it can be accessed thru public libraries.

a reply to: Caver78

And of course whatever scientific paper you choose to quote as proof, there is always the problem with who's paying them for the outcome to factor in. Bah buggeration such a minefield. Its easy to see how back in the distant past before tinterweb how people accepted without question what they were told. I remember once upon a time thinking the BBC were Gods Gift to news reporting

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Lol, I feel your pain.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Ive often thought that all the great fantastic things technology has brought us and made us able to do, manipulate, create and modify?

Its also put a huge on everything we see, do, hear, watch or read....

So, in the end...I kinda feel tech has taken away some pieces of us all.....and put much of all we do see in doubt....

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport

And of course whatever scientific paper you choose to quote as proof, there is always the problem with who's paying them for the outcome to factor in. Bah buggeration such a minefield. Its easy to see how back in the distant past before tinterweb how people accepted without question what they were told. I remember once upon a time thinking the BBC were Gods Gift to news reporting

When I signed up to ATS it was invariably *Pic's or it didn't happen*

a reply to: eletheia

yup same and now pics don't even cut it thanks to the wonders of photoshop and cgi. Oh Praise the God/dess of Technology for making the conspiracy world soooo much harder

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Brava! Well put.

Personally, I use sources that:
1) are upfront about their 'funding sources' be they private (always questionable), advertising revenues, public funded.
2) are edited by professional and trained by professional journalists - not PR people, lobbiests, or 'dumb blonds'.
3) have links to their sources that are not self-referential. Or use only 'agenda-driven' sources.
4) require more then one reliable source to print.
5) keep 'speculation' and opinion out of 'news' ... Who, What, When, Where, How -- no why whatsoever.
4) have history of excellence and professionalism.

A good measure of any given piece is whether or not differing opinions are acknowledged for validity and addressed. If a piece only doesn't address problems, and questions, it's usually a propoganda piece.

It's very hard in this digital age to find good sources - so I tend to stick to basics - to people and organizations that have a solid track record.

For instance - I would never quote Brietbart as a source and stopped using Huffington Post as one when I discovered that HuffPo was founded not only by Arianna Huffington but Andrew Brietbart as well (and I 'speculate' that was the source of the money). For your information - Ariann Huffington was married to Michael Huffington a California 'rightist' that overturn 'people's will' by throwing mountains of money at the Grey Davis recall which Arnold Swartzenager took advance of... love the integrity of Republicans. Not that democrats are any better.

There are people that I trust to do their homework. And outlets.

One more time, I ask the ATS community. What are your reliable, well sourced and vetted, and professional news outlets on the right? I've been asking this question for years without valid response.

The Heritage Foundation is not source with integrity nor is Brietbart. Both have clear agenda that are driven by - big money and big business.

For goodness sake! Another case in point on the Isis and newly discovered palace thread.....Did you even read the article? "No I just replied to the title"

WTH!

I prefer 'self-thought explanations' to proof. Nothing can ever be proven by pure text, and studies can always be faulty or paid for by some (corporate) entity with an agenda. People would probably be surprised if they knew how many (seemingly reliable) doctors big Pharma has in its pocket.

In discussion forums, it's best to discuss. I don't mind some links or other ways of 'validating a point', but I will never consider anything to be 'proof'. Really, even if I saw something with my own eyes, I can't be 100% sure it wasn't SOME kind of hallucination or illusion.

A well-written argument or self-thought and written explanation is better than proof to me, because it's proof of real humanity. When I see someone ACTUALLY think, it brings a sense of relief, after having lived in this world of robots, automatons and cellphone zombies.

(Look at people, they can't take their eyes off that 'magical rectangle' for more than two seconds at a time, and they HAVE to carry it -everywhere- they go, without EVEN being able to put it in their pocket for awhile. Just for awhile.. but nope. It has to be in their hand, even if they already have their hands full or they're with a friend or pushing a stroller with some kind of height-challenged lifeform sitting in there. Why communicate with the result of your reproductive activities when you can scroll through instagram and check how many likes you got for some completely inane post about a trivial matter on a social media site filled with bots and simps that don't care about you?)

Sorry, for some reason my posts tend to turn into rants recently..