How much data do you require before you accept something as "fact"?
-
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
From their own description of Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera has been a valuable voice for the Palestinians as most Western media favors Israel. While most of its reporting has been factual in covering the conflict they have demonstrated one-sided reporting that tends to denigrate Israel.
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about "loaded language". Yet they say "straight news has minimal bias". Then they give Times of Israel "high credibility" and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for "biased language".
High credibility is 2 "levels" higher than the middle of the field "mixed".
-
This post did not contain any content.
Just Facebook! LOL
-
I keep hearing "it isn't the quantity..." and I do not understand why it isn't seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
I keep hearing “it isn’t the quantity…” and I do not understand why it isn’t seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is 'Libb' you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality 'Mickey' or 'Gertrude'. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I'm still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
No, and I'm almost wishing to see it. Almost.
I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that's just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I'm also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot
-
Some studies on dreams under anesthesia.
What do you disagree with here exactly?
-
From their own description of Al Jazeera
Al Jazeera has been a valuable voice for the Palestinians as most Western media favors Israel. While most of its reporting has been factual in covering the conflict they have demonstrated one-sided reporting that tends to denigrate Israel.
Mixed for factual reporting. They cite 2 articles that they have found to be false since forever. They complain about "loaded language". Yet they say "straight news has minimal bias". Then they give Times of Israel "high credibility" and speak how unbiased their language is, giving the same examples as they gave in the Al Jazeera one for "biased language".
High credibility is 2 "levels" higher than the middle of the field "mixed".
Do you have examples of other bias/fact check sources that contradict the score from MBFS?
-
What do you disagree with here exactly?
A better example of what I mean by unconsciousness is general anesthesia. That doesn’t feel like anything. One moment you’re lying in the operating room counting backwards, and the next you’re in the recovery room. There’s no sense of time passing, no dreams, nothing in between - it’s just a gap.
I am not disagreeing. I am providing you something that demonstrates the premise you built your idea on is false.
-
Do you have examples of other bias/fact check sources that contradict the score from MBFS?
Jfc you aren't talking to a search engine. Want to search, ask google. I directly provided info on their bias. The entire thing was controversial like a year ago here on lemmy. I'm not a monkey to be jumping through hoops to prove something to you. Don't want to believe me even after I provided the example, don't, I don't care.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I'm not sure how I would even quantify this.
But I could qualify this: having a consensus across multiple trusted sources.
-
I keep hearing “it isn’t the quantity…” and I do not understand why it isn’t seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is 'Libb' you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality 'Mickey' or 'Gertrude'. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I'm still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
No, and I'm almost wishing to see it. Almost.
I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that's just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I'm also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot
consider my flat-earthers example: the trustworthiness of the source(s) is at least as important. If I told you my pseudo is ‘Libb’ you can bet that it is indeed so, even if that just me saying it. And that would remain true if, out of nowhere, 100s of people started telling you my pseudo was in reality ‘Mickey’ or ‘Gertrude’. I would still be Libb. Conclusion? All by myself, against that hypotheticla large crowd, I’m still a more reliable source of info concerning my identity.
The trustworthiness is absolutely important, and just as important to me, as quantity. The point I was making is it seems that a lot of people in the thread have been underrating the importance of quantity and over rating the importance of source quality. Even the most reputable sources can be wrong, especially in frontier sciences, which leads to a lot of retractions and rewrites.
Using your example, you could be lying.
No, and I’m almost wishing to see it. Almost.
It isn't worth hunting down, but worth a watch if you stumble across it. haha
I must admit the rise of flat earth theory came as a shock to me. I always have had a sweet spot for absurd theories but I could not imagine people taking those seriously. But maybe that’s just me being manipulated/lobotomized by the government? As a matter of fact, I’m also a pro-vax and that may explain a lot
It came as a shock to me as well. I enjoy reading about the absurd ideas people have in their heads, and I get why people believe in them. It makes sense to them, and they rely on nothing but personal observation and limited knowledge to form beliefs. They were failed as children in my opinion.
I too got my microchips and am possibly being manipulated by the government. Which one? Who knows. Monies on the US. lol
-
Jfc you aren't talking to a search engine. Want to search, ask google. I directly provided info on their bias. The entire thing was controversial like a year ago here on lemmy. I'm not a monkey to be jumping through hoops to prove something to you. Don't want to believe me even after I provided the example, don't, I don't care.
The plural of anecdote is not data. From what I found the ratings on other sites were citing the same things, which is why I asked if you had something substantial considering your point of view.
Stop being such a combative child if you want to communicate with others. I was asking you for information I couldn't find, not arguing with you. Take a breathe outside bud.
-
One quality study is enough to convince you of something, even if it has never been reproduced or reviewed?
Sure. If it fills a gap in my model, I don't need any proof at all. Why would I? It just makes sense. Of course I'm going to tentatively fit it in
And if a study convincingly disproves it, I'll just as quickly discard the tentative idea. Why wouldn't I? It made sense, but it didn't math out.
But this is all in the context of my model. It's a big web of corroboration
You can't convince me global warming isn't happening, because I'm watching it in real time. No amount of studies are doing to do more than inform the facts of my lived experience... I'm the primary source, I was there
-
This post did not contain any content.
A couple kilobites, minimum.
-
The plural of anecdote is not data. From what I found the ratings on other sites were citing the same things, which is why I asked if you had something substantial considering your point of view.
Stop being such a combative child if you want to communicate with others. I was asking you for information I couldn't find, not arguing with you. Take a breathe outside bud.
You are arguing with me and you are looking to confirm your existing bias. You are asking me for ridiculous proof for what's essentially someone saying "they are biased, here is one example" and you keep asking for more. As I said, I am not your monkey, don't want to look for more, don't want to put in the effort, then stay in your bubble of ignorance.
-
A better example of what I mean by unconsciousness is general anesthesia. That doesn’t feel like anything. One moment you’re lying in the operating room counting backwards, and the next you’re in the recovery room. There’s no sense of time passing, no dreams, nothing in between - it’s just a gap.
I am not disagreeing. I am providing you something that demonstrates the premise you built your idea on is false.
Perhaps it’s a bad analogy then, but my point still stands: what most people experience - or rather don’t experience - under general anesthesia is the absence of consciousness. If they’re dreaming, then by definition that’s not what I’m talking about.
The point is that what people mean by “consciousness” when discussing philosophical concepts like the hard problem of consciousness is different from what a layperson typically means by the term. That is what I argue cannot be an illusion.
-
You are arguing with me and you are looking to confirm your existing bias. You are asking me for ridiculous proof for what's essentially someone saying "they are biased, here is one example" and you keep asking for more. As I said, I am not your monkey, don't want to look for more, don't want to put in the effort, then stay in your bubble of ignorance.
I have not once argued anything in any direction. I asked you to point me in the direction of what I couldn't find, because what I could find contradicts you.
If you don't want to support your claim jog on and try to start a fight with someone else.
-
Perhaps it’s a bad analogy then, but my point still stands: what most people experience - or rather don’t experience - under general anesthesia is the absence of consciousness. If they’re dreaming, then by definition that’s not what I’m talking about.
The point is that what people mean by “consciousness” when discussing philosophical concepts like the hard problem of consciousness is different from what a layperson typically means by the term. That is what I argue cannot be an illusion.
I think you need to work on your argument.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
If it's a really reliable source and sounds plausible, very little. Iran hit a hospital in Israel recently.
If it's some random person and sounds plausible, probably many repetitions from unrelated people in unrelated contexts, with some time as "word is" after a couple or few mentions. Airport security is theater and misses actual weapons all the time. I guess I should add the caveat that if it's something easily refuted like "TSA hires out of malls" it gets promoted to fact faster, because of Cunningham's law.
If it sounds implausible, a lot. Like, it might be a thing I painstakingly confirm or deny over the course of years. Thermodynamics is always explained in a way that has massive gaping logical holes. It obviously empirically works, but a rigorous derivation without any sneaky tricks would probably imply a proof of P!=NP - and it took me years to work my way through enough papers and literature to confirm that.
If it's a source or type of source with a history of making up the sort of thing they're saying, infinite - it will be all noise regardless of how much data there is.
Laying it out like this, I clearly put a lot of emphasis on the motivation and past track record of sources. There's so many things to see and measure, far too many, and there's also lies and mistakes, so I guess one has to. That's probably been true since the stone age, and probably drove some human evolution, although it's intensified quite a lot in recent history.
Note that even facts are still subject to skepticism, discussion and revision. Absolute certainty it it's own beast, and it's not a universally agreed-on fact that it even exists.
-
This post did not contain any content.
ill tell you this, the amount of data would require for anyone accept a statement or idea as fact is related to their emotional assessment of the idea. See it all the time with trump supporters that think that trump is actually fighting to cut tax on overtime pay simple because he said it on the trail and there no evidence (and they have no evidence) that is happening, on the other hand it would take an infinite amount of evidence that trump took bribes even as he openly appointed Elon after spending millions of dollars.
so its weird that you have to propagandize the facts just to get people anywhere near a reasonable level of skeptism.
but for me I just say anything is valid unless I know how its wrong, which is limbo of acceptance then afterwards it can become a scoreboard where for and against. maybe a source doesn't 100% line up with a statement, hell even video/audio evidence can be incongruent with a statement (as in its similar to what's said but doesn't back up a statement). I think the claim that Floyd overdosed but the video doesn't show a overdose from opioids, so you'd have to rule out overdose simple because video doesn't match the description of an overdose.
it wouldn't take much, generally new information has to be consistent with what I know. the hard part is understanding the new information. no one is randomly disprove gravity or that things have mass, but someone can prove to me how a myth is meant to be interpreted for the intended audience
-
This post did not contain any content.
Basically, if it's in the Bible, it's fact. Everything else is entirely made up by the devil.
-
Basically, if it's in the Bible, it's fact. Everything else is entirely made up by the devil.
I'm like 90% sure this is sarcastic, but you never know.
