About Misinformation Page 3
|July 26th, 2009||#22|
| || |
For example rather than saying "there was a poll in 1984 where 94% said they would do X" you simply state that "I seem to recall a poll around 1984 where an overwhelming majority said X".
Now I understand some people find that wishy washy but one of the beauties of the English language is in its flexibility in this case to move a categorical statement with points that require confirmation to a general comment that does not.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC – AD 65)
|July 26th, 2009||#24|
| || |
It is easier for lazy people to spout gibberish from memory rather than do a little work.
Just add yourself to the list of those who make excuses for not providing sources for their statements. They are still not valid reasons.
People should not complain about receiving misinformation if they are a willing partner in it.
If you can not find a specific source you think may exist than find another to support your point.
|July 26th, 2009||#25|
| || |
By saying we're being party to misinformation, you're stating that we're lying. Prove it.
If you want to have a source, I'll get you one.
If I tell you that it's from a primary source and you don't like it, that's not my problem.
Last edited by A Can of Man; July 26th, 2009 at 16:36..
|July 29th, 2009||#26|
| || |
Misinformation in Politics and Accuracy of some News Reporting info
Say Red, I hear you on this topic of debate and politicians creating a stir over subjects, sometimes so much it distract from the subject and accurate information.
A few months ago, I saw a bizarre movie online, named something of the effect, The Power Behind the President. I did not get it, (will go back and look for a link).
There was some over-dramatics with music and looked like a propaganda piece, but then about 30 minutes into the film I saw a part about how big money is behind both candidates, and they both work for the same master or boss.
Is that misinformation or do you think it could be true?
|July 29th, 2009||#27|
| || |
I think that's a simplified model.
But the President does get his campaign money from certain people and he does have to return the favor.
I have to watch the movie to make a final conclusion but from what you said, it seems over simplified maybe even exagerrated.
|July 29th, 2009||#28|
| || |
This is why it is important to word responses in discussions in such a way as the two systems can be differentiated.
Further to this there is a lot of information that is not available via the web and therefore can not be linked as a source for example information from books or subscription websites.
There is also the problem that at some point information has to be accepted or rejected at face value for example if you tell us a cat peed on your rug should we sit here demanding pictures, DNA tests and signed/ notarised declarations that this actually happened (Lets not forget the requirement to validate all of your downstream witnesses etc.) or should we just say "ok it matches the stain" and move on.
I would also like to point out that if I say such things as:
- In my opinion the sky is purple.
- I believe that cats lay eggs.
I do not have to provide a source as they are views not necessarily formed from fact.
There is of course one other option available to you, if you do not believe something posted is accurate then you can provide sources as to why it isn't.
Last edited by MontyB; July 29th, 2009 at 01:27..
|July 29th, 2009||#29|
| || |
Of course you are getting ridiculous suggesting DNA tests, signed/notarized statements are needed. Even if they might give stronger credibility to your statement. The better and stronger your source the less likely it can be refuted.
Stating "in my opinion" does not give a free ride to someone to make statements of fact without supporting them.
1. Why should anyone be required to do someone else's homework.
2. The person disagreeing may want to spend their time looking for a rebuttal.
A lot of people who don't like to supply sources a more interested in arguing than debating, or don't understand the difference.
I know here in the US there are a lot of complaints about our public school systems, but I would be surprised if anyone here could graduate High School with out having to do a term paper. People are taught how to pick a topic, state their opinion/position and supply facts and sources to support that position. That is what needs to be done here to make intelligent informed discussions. Otherwise we will need to be satisfied with misinformation.
One thing that rings extremely hollow in this discussion is that sources can't be found on the INTERNET. Why? Because topics brought up on this forum are almost all based on INTERNET information. If it is not it quickly dies from lack of interest.
People who complain about supplying sources just want to spout their opinions and can't be bothered to support them with facts.
I am probably spoiled in forgetting that free public libraries were available in the US before it was a country. And live in a country were the right to free speech is so important. I forget free libraries may be available in some countries, but their content may be restricted by what the government wants people to know or the libraries are not available to everyone.
|July 29th, 2009||#30|
| || |
I personally am much more conservative with many of my views, but I don't think it's necessarily a good way for the government to be run. It's just my personal views.
Middle without extreme left or right-wing ideas is always a good thing.
"Our politicians do not serve us; they serve the multinational corporations that pay them. It's time to change that. Let's end the corporate takeover of our government." — Cenk Uygur