posted on Aug, 22 2004 @ 12:22 PM
Here's an EXCELLENT page on all types of debates:
www.infidels.org...
What most folks get tripped up in is their research... they think that two supporting web pages make a convincing argument, neglecting to note that
Sturgeon's Law applies to the Internet (98% of everything out there is drivel)
Good research:
Some of the information matches the information found in encyclopedias or in journals (these publications have editors and it's very hard to get
articles in there. The information can get out-of-date, but this is a good place to start.) A good example of this would be the 2003 Planet X
hysteria... a quick search in the encyclopedias on "planet orbits" and calculating them enabled anyone with a junior high school education to knock
holes in the arguments of the hysterics.
University websited (.edu) often are good resources. These are also where you can find the more fringe-y material.
News reports should be considered as "rumor" unless you see them in more than one news source.
Know the tabloid sources (Pravda is a tabloid and shouldn't be taken seriously, for example. RumorMillNews is for rumors... not for news.) Tabloid
material is fun to investigate but shouldn't be taken seriously.
In dealing with an ancient site/culture, read up about the culture and site first (and read the archaeological and anthropological material.) A lot
of people who talk about the Great Pyramid are unaware that it's actually one of nine pyramids sitting in the middle of a great cemetary and has a
whole ancient city surrounding it -- a city full of written records of who was there and what they were doing.)
In dealing with science, read some of the basic articles on "how things work" and be sure to read the counterexamples (the "free energy devices"
are often fraudulent and some basic reading on how power is generated would help you spot the frauds and hoaxes.)
Mysterious "diagrams" where the design simply says things like "yebronia collection area" are bunk. A real engineering design has details... not
"imaginary Part Goes here" type designations.
[edit on 22-8-2004 by Byrd]