In this Information Age, the problem is not enough information, is quenching your thirst for the truth from a firehouse of disinformation, lies, dirty double crossing,
Who do you really trust to get it right more often than any other source of truth?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In this Information Age, the problem is not enough
> information, is quenching your thirst for the
> truth from a firehouse of disinformation, lies,
> dirty double crossing,
> Who do you really trust to get it right more often
> than any other source of truth?
This is a very complex question. I deem myself to be a reseacher therefore I browse over a mountain of information and discard the vast majority of it,
I try to look at it from three prospectives
1.Is it logical
2.Is it reaonable
3.Is it supported by any empirical, that is, unchallengeable evidence?
If these three criteria are met then and only then do I accept that it might be true. Understand not that it is true but that it might be true.
So I weigh evidence in my mind and then make my assumptions.
These assumptions apply only to me and although I pesent them as credible to me I realize that they may not be credible to others.
A good example of this is Insofar as it is a direct unamplified translation I accept the translations of Zeccharia Sitchen as factually acceptable.
I also relegate the work of Joseph Smith Jr. to the world of fantasy.
OH MY !!!I do blabber on. Goodbye for now, DR1

Great Response.
I agree. I am a researcher too.
I don't just look to one source, but I compare what I hear from multiple sources I trust and compare what the most trustworthy sources have to say. The truth us somewhere in the middle, the common ground.
But sometimes the sources you have trusted all along, who've never steered you wrong, steer you wrong.
This whole origins of the Corona Virus thing is a perfect example. I trust the WHO, who was the only organization that was allowed into China to investigate the Lab Leak and they ruled it out. So I, like the rest of the world, trust the WHO.
Kind of like trusting the CULT leaders to do our thinking for us.
I want to steer as clear from group think as possible.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/27/2021 01:26AM by schrodingerscat.

The job of determining, what is truth? seems especially tough for exMormons, because those of us who woke up from the group think we inherited or adopted are a rare breed, when it seems like most of your “tribe” believes a great big huge lie! That you cannot in good conscience just remain silent about.
You either have to find a new tribe or go it alone.

The source I turn to the most for telling the truth is NPR. But obviously they cover only a limited subject range, and pretty superficial.

I like to get the information I want straight from the geniuses who wrote the books that never get old.

The Road To Reality A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, by Roger Penrose, this years Nobel Prize winner for physics, for proving Einstein’s theory of relativity’s prediction of black holes correct, 100years after the fact.

It is a great source of truth for me. Even though it is waaaaaay over my head, the parts of it I can understand, are mind expanding. It forms a well balanced twistor structure, which has condensed/expanded to become our 3D reality, 4D reality slowed down.

Science Journals, like Nature Magazine and Scientific American.
If something gets through peer review to that level, that it gets published in Nature magazine, that’s about a high a standard as there is for truth (NOT Truth).

But sometimes the ‘Scientific Consensus’ lags behind individual mathematical formulas. Take for instance, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant, Lambda, which he included originally to balance the static universe.
Scientific consensus was that the universe was expanding, exponentially based upon Hubbell’s observations.
So Einstein called his Lambda his biggest mistake.
Of course they were not looking in the right direction or far enough. When Einstein came up with his theory of relativity the scientific consensus was that the universe was as big as our Milky Way.
Had they looked South instead of North they might have noticed the Universe. Laniakea, all 100k galaxies, were all converging on the same exact point in space. The Great Attractor.
And Einstein’s Lambda would have become the basis of our best model of the Cosmos, 100yrs ago.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But sometimes the ‘Scientific Consensus’ lags
> behind individual mathematical formulas. Take for
> instance, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant,
> Lambda, which he included originally to balance
> the static universe.

Lambda was not "math." It was the absence of math, the failure of math. By his own account, Einstein created a "fudge factor" because he couldn't get the math to conform to known physics. In fact, Lambda was an early attempt to bring the math up to speed with the science.


---------------
> Had they looked South instead of North they might
> have noticed the Universe. Laniakea, all 100k
> galaxies, were all converging on the same exact
> point in space. The Great Attractor.
> And Einstein’s Lambda would have become the
> basis of our best model of the Cosmos, 100yrs ago.

Not all galaxies are converging on the Great Attractor. That is a local phenomenon with local effects. Moreover, even the local universe is not going to converge at that point. According to your own source,"is the Great Attractor a threat to us?

"No, not really. Expansion will in this case win against condensing worlds. The peculiar velocity is only at 20% of what it should be to seal our fate with the Great Attractor. Everything that is not small clusters tends to fall apart, even the huge Laniakea which will one day dilute and fail as a supercluster. At the rate that we’re expanding, we will never actually come into contact with the mysterious Great Attractor, though we continue to study it."


----------------
That's your own source.

SC wants a narrative of grand sweep and universe-changing importance. The Great Attractor is a local phenomenon of relatively minor importance, but the name is perfect for imagined Grand Narratives, so SC just ignores the evidence and fabricates one from bits and pieces of the evidence. No matter that the bits and pieces don't actually fit together.

I can overlook someone reporting bad science writing. Not everything out there is well vetted, and sometimes even if it is well vetted, it turns out to be wrong.

What really annoys me is people making up a narrative from whole cloth, the evidence be damned. You really can't blame that on accepting other people's reporting in good faith.

That reminds me of the old consultant's shortcut for solving mathematical problems: find a point and draw a line.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> What really annoys me is people making up a
> narrative from whole cloth, the evidence be
> damned.


So basically, The Cat = Joseph Smith ± C² ?

Use some Energy to pull your head out of your Mass, you Constant Square.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/23/2021 06:47PM by Lot's Wife.

The Torah!

Would ghawd lie?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > But sometimes the ‘Scientific Consensus’
> lags
> > behind individual mathematical formulas. Take
> for
> > instance, Einstein’s Cosmological Constant,
> > Lambda, which he included originally to balance
> > the static universe.
>
> Lambda was not "math." It was the absence of
> math, the failure of math. By his own account,
> Einstein created a "fudge factor" because he
> couldn't get the math to conform to known physics.
> In fact, Lambda was an early attempt to bring
> the math up to speed with the science.

Which is why NASA uses the Lambda CDM model as their standard model of the Cosmos.

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/univ_evol.cfm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

> ---------------
> > Had they looked South instead of North they
> might
> > have noticed the Universe. Laniakea, all 100k
> > galaxies, were all converging on the same exact
> > point in space. The Great Attractor.
> > And Einstein’s Lambda would have become the
> > basis of our best model of the Cosmos, 100yrs
> ago.
>
> Not all galaxies are converging on the Great
> Attractor. That is a local phenomenon with local
> effects. Moreover, even the local universe is not
> going to converge at that point. According to
> your own source,"is the Great Attractor a threat
> to us?
All 100,000 galaxies in our neighborhood, Laniakea, are converging on the great attaractor at 1.4 Million mph, which is what accounts for the galaxy spinning at over half a million mph, which accounts for everything that follows, the suns, planets, moons, heliosphere, magnetosphere, all follow from that scientific truth.
> "No, not really. Expansion will in this case win
> against condensing worlds.

Nobody knows if that is the case or not.
All we know is that we are balanced between dark matter (gravity) and dark energy (expansion, radiation) which equals Lambda, the cosmological constant, the speed and spin at which e=mc^2
Where energy slows down long enough to matter.
The god particle (Higgs Boson) is at work slowing down energy light, to create all the subatomic particle zoo.
Those particles slow down long enough to stick together and form atoms. Atoms stick together to form molecules.
Molecules form into plasma, electrified ionized gas,
Like Northern Lights, projected from both poles of every galaxy, negative and positive come together, condenses into matter, along the accretion disk of every galaxy, forming beautiful spiral galaxies around each black hole.

The peculiar velocity
> is only at 20% of what it should be to seal our
> fate with the Great Attractor. Everything that is
> not small clusters tends to fall apart, even the
> huge Laniakea which will one day dilute and fail
> as a supercluster. At the rate that we’re
> expanding, we will never actually come into
> contact with the mysterious Great Attractor,
> though we continue to study it."
>
>
> ----------------
> That's your own source.

I know. It’s great to speculate about it because it’s all speculation. If we could see where we think the great attractor is, 250 million light years away(which we can’t) what we’d see would be what was 250million light years away, 250 million years ago. And IT is likely moving, really fast. Why?
Where? How TF? We don’t know.
All we know is that it takes 250 million years for the Milky Way to make one full rotation, where we are located, surfing a wave, at over half a million mph, following our sun’s wake of stardust, slowing down inside our magnetosphere, long enough to matter, not only matter, but ignite the Borealis on both pole, simultaneously.
So all we can do is speculate, WTF exactly is pulling all 100k black holes and galaxies in Laniakea together, toward the same spot on space, at over a million mph?
Answer that and prepare to accept your Nobel Prize!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 09:41PM by schrodingerscat.

Myself.

I am the final arbiter of what is true. I sit before me each assertion and notion. As judge I compel answers to my questions and then render my verdict... Either:
Guilty of being true, or Not Guilty of being true.


HH =)

It’s all true if you decide to believe it. Ha! Ha!

There are cases where that is correct - the proverbial "self-fulfilling prophecies." If everyone believes a bank will fail and they pull their money out, sure enough, the bank fails.

However, there is an objective reality out there, and belief does not change that. That was the entire point of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Most people don’t want the truth. They want a good story. Maybe that’s where Joe was right. If you want the truth, don’t be Mormon.

I count on my dreams as a source of truth. It helps if you work on your third eye. I look up the dream symbolism online.

I don't search for truth. I accept it when it becomes evident. Otherwise I live my life, chillin' with the people I want to chill with, and doing the things that bring me satisfaction. Discovered truths are merely incidental events along the path. Chill. Enjoy life as much as possible. Those things are challenge enough.

If searching for truth is a hobby of yours, have at it.

True.
Shakabrah!

Reliable sources are limited.

The reason I ask is because there are more scientists, like the former Dir of CDC, who say virus likely started in a lab in China, not transmitted from wild.
Fauchi and Francis Collins are still sticking to the official script, this virus was transmitted from wild animals.

so who do you believe?

Why does it matter?

Well these are the same folks who are telling us this brand new technology has zero long term effects.

I believe the medical authorities, generally.
But in this case it does seem like more and more scientists are leaning towards possible lab leak theory, but WHO says Nope! Nothin to see here in China labs! Just normal crispers clones.

I am past caring where it came from (the Chinese are probably culpable but they'll never own up to it) so preventing it and possibly curing it are all that really matters.

More unsupported bullshit about covid coming out of a lab.

Not necessarily, Dave. What S-Cat gets wrong is his assumption that Fauci and others shouldn't change their minds as new evidence arises.

As long ago as when Simon Southerton posted on the topic, I said that China's suppression of relevant data, arrest of scientists and doctors, etc., suggested that Beijing was worried that the virus may have escaped from a laboratory.

Since then other information has emerged that likewise casts a shadow over the Chinese story. There's nothing definitive to date, but that applies to he official story as much as to the laboratory theory. It would be a mistake, in my view, to stop looking for answers now.


https://nicholaswade.medium.com/

I just asked who do you trust?
Simple question.
No need for ad hominem attacks.
(Hint: when you are talking about a particular person, rather than the subject, that’s the definition of an Ad Hominem attack.)

“Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” Wikipedia article on Ad Hominem

Quit it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 09:51PM by schrodingerscat.

Saying you got something wrong is not an ad hominem attack.

Grow up.

Ever hear the phrase, " Case by case basis?"

And, "There is nothing so uncertain as a sure thing."-- coined by Somebody Famous probably.


The whole problem with religion and politics is the need to establish the one true source and stick with it no matter what. Don't be like that.

I just asked who do you trust as a source of truth?
So far only two people, besides me, have answered, ‘Myself’
I buy that, but I’m not a mathematician or a string theorist, I gotta rely on mathematicians to do the higher math and tell me, I did the math and here’s how it works out, thanks for the Nobel Prize!

These days truth and money are not comfortable in the same room.




Reminder: The lifeblood of media is money...

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Who do you really trust to get it right more often than any other source of truth? >

You are your own best filter (IF you take in enough facts, perspectives, reasoned and voices, etc.).

There are trustworthy, credible, individual sources and channels (but Very Few, comparatively), and friends who may know what's going on, but you have to tune in or talk with them regularly and tune out ALL THE REST.

You have to decide for yourself, or ask me. I'll tell ya'! You may have to ask again and again until you settle in on what's right and what's left for you.

Name your interest:

News
Arts
Current Events
Past Events/ history
Culture
Sports
...

Okay, that's going too far. All we have is the present... and our (trusted) sources.

There is probably a truth-to-BS ratio that could be trusted to be correct most of the time. But I bet you'd find it would vary from person to person.

If such ratios could be formulated, you'd see a pretty big disparity between The Cat's truth-to-BS ratio and, say, Brother of Jerry-&-the-Pacemakers truth-to-BS ratio.

> *°•.`There is probably a truth-to-BS ratio that could be trusted to be correct most of the time. But I bet you'd find it would vary from person to person.'.•°*>

That's a fact! Otherwise people wouldn't be asking such crazy questions, expect wildly accurate and exciting answers, and/ or be so confused as to what is truth/ who am I/ what am I doing here and stuff like this. Weed all no the ansirs and none would be of assistance.

>.°•°. If such ratios could be formulated, you'd see a pretty big disparity between The Cat's truth-to-BS ratio and, say, Brother of Jerry-&-the-Pacemakers truth-to-BS ratio. >

How about the peace makers (If someone is making pizza, I want a piece-please;)?

The truth is out there.
It's just too far out for too many. Not moremany though. Oh no! I may be out there but it's what's in here that counts (the pacemaker).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2021 06:19AM by moremany.

What is trust but a leap of faith? The second you need trust or faith, you are gambling. In gambling you have to figure the odds. The best you get is an educated guess which is only slightly better than an uneducated guess as you are still trusting that your education was flawless. So if you trust yourself, you are only trusting, having faith, in just another one of your sources--you. Since you don't know what you don't know, the best bet is to quit trusting even yourself.

I trust that it's all a crap shoot. Or not.

told me years ago that he thinks life is all just a crap shoot. Makes you wonder if he really, really believes.

Myself, who do I trust most as a source of truth? I'd place bets on my dad first and foremost. Even if he was still a "believer" when he died, he taught us to be free thinkers and he was more a heretic than ever a believer, just like most of his family. I had "permission" to leave the church as my siblings had left and my parents didn't fall apart about it. My dad is the one I should have talked to before getting married as once he figured out my "husband" is gay, he told me "they are born that way."

I do follow my own belief system now and it is unique to only me, but I was taught how to think being raised by my parents or I never would have felt I could walk away from the lds church.

Yes. What I wrote above for me has merit. This because *trusting yourself to know absolutely for sure* what is truth-- does not automatically make you an expert.

Like Mormons. They have chosen their source of truth because they trust themselves make the selection. Doesn't make the source right. Makes no case for choosing any source at all. or . . .


Like, uh, the people who laid siege to congress. Perhaps they trusted their orange fountain of truth you could say. You could also say they trusted themselves to know the truth because they had chosen their source of truth--- as the thread goes. So now that some are in deep trouble. They could have followed facts instead, which requires scrutiny in place of trust. So where does that put trust as being trustworthy?



But cl2, I don't really think life is a crap shoot although hard to prove otherwise at least in some regard.

What changed everything for me was a teacher I had in High School right there in the heart of Mormonlandia who taught a whole week on critical thinking. What a gift for a young mind. Learning to gather information, not jump to conclusions, and alway understand there may be one part missing when you attempt to sum up.

So today, I ask, not what is a good source of truth. But how do you separate "the wheat from the tares?" Not by trusting. No. Fear is a better friend. Fear of missing critical information as you search will keep you on your toes. Like an animal on the hunt with every instinct on high alert.

Better to be Agatha Christie.

D&D "Like Mormons. They have chosen their source of truth because they trust themselves make the selection."

Not sure what you mean here but THEY DON'T trust themselves: they trust their MISleader(s)/ cult figures/ media reps./ 'church'/ friends/ channels/ organizations ('disorganizations'), etc.

People who Don't Trust Themselves - and instead blindly follow - may be missing an instinctual cue, a sharp edged BSD (BS Detector), or an ability to pivot, change or adapt.

Critical thinking, or,
Following? No brainer

They may follow, even blindly, but they have made the decision themselves that the right thing to do is to follow and that is how they are trusting themselves. My whole point is that trusting yourself is not an automatic win.

But they Don't trust themselves. They trust their mis"leaders" and can't make a choice on their own.

They aren't flexible, but rigid, and therefore unable to trust their own instincts and make ongoing choices.

If they trusted themselves they could leave "the 'church'", but they don't.

I'm looking at trust in a more nuanced way than your simplistic one-note idea of it. That's all. I like things fleshed out.

Best Regards

The flesh is out.
Truth is within-

I am here to bless, inform and entertain, not to simplify, justify and explain.

If you want it broken down, it will cost you... and you don't want to be broke... Do you?

You may be looking at trust in the wrong way if it has to be all shiny and new for you to trust it or to like it.

I put it like it is.
That's the way it is-

You're supposed to trust yourself. G

If you don't like our help, seek within.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2021 05:17PM by moremany.

Oh brother!

Looking at trust all shiny???? No. That is you.

My entire post was about how complicated the issue can be--anything but shiny. My whole post was about how it is anything but the way you tried to interpret my post for your own ego.

Your version is the shiny new one, like I said: simplistic and one note. Making Mormons all the same and inferring that the reasons they follow their leader are all identical is a shiny viewpoint.

How weird would it be to meet and deal with a used car salesman who always told the truth?

And what if he tried to run ads based on this quirk?

Society would crumble. We are no longer equipped to handle the truth. Just try telling your love that,Yes that dress makes you look even fatter that you already are, or, no, honey, that is NOT nine inches--- and see what happens.

Soon he or she would run out of cars... and have to start walking.

Beats talking!

The words truth and true get badly abused in English. Asking who you trust as a source of truth makes as much sense as asking who you trust as a source of ambidextrous. What does that even mean? “I know the church is true.” What does that mean?

Now, who do I trust most as a source of reliable information? That’s a question that makes sense, and my answer is that it depends on the subject. How much do I trust the information? Again, it depends on the subject, and the context.

BTW, “myself” is not the source of most of the information I have. I guess I am the final judge of of what I find credible, though I even have some doubts about that. The last two cars I bought both turned out to be the most popular color nationwide, at the time, though I was not aware of that at the time. I had just absorbed cultural cues. So was that “my decision?” Seems ambiguous to me.

And what about temporary truths?


Is a half-truth worth 50% of what you'd pay for the whole truth?


Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight?





How do any of us sleep nights!!!!

Perhaps in that regard, The Cat has it all over us?

The dead, as they have no agenda now.

"To thine own self, be true." This has served me well for decades.

There are multiple sources of truth, but for my life I'm the final judge. In fact, if I'm the source of truth, I'm in trouble. If I think I'm the source of truth, I'm going to miss a lot of information that can be helpful.

Whether it's romance or finance, politics or religion, or health choices, I'm the final judge. Let's look at a few of these a bit further.

Romance: I'm the only person on the face of the earth who knows what kind of woman I want to spend my time with, whether to get married, and whether to have children. There might be "sources of truth" but I'm the one who has to decide what is right for me.

There are plenty of people who are willing to vomit idiotic ideas about romance. THe Mormon church, for example. It doesn't matter who you marry as long as you both "live the gospel". Look where that got them. Unhappy men and women with herds of little kids. Men coming out of the closet in their 50's. Unusually high rate of antidepressant use. There are many factors involved here, but taking terrible advice on romance is one of them.

Finance: Do I buy Bitcoin? Stonks? Real estate? There are plenty of people who are more than willing to tell the "the truth" about where to put my money. The only problem is many of them stand to gain from me following their "truth".

Don't believe me? Has a real estate agent ever NOT said that the house they're trying to sell is going to go down in value? Has a hodler every told you NOT to buy BTC? At $60K, I was in a Clubhouse room listening to some very passionate arguments about BTC. One guy was advising people to get a second mortgage on their home or even move to a cheaper home so they could buy more Bitcoin. If you followed that advice at $60K, you'd have been very disappointed the past few weeks as you watched it slide to $30K at one point.

And I participate in a group about general crypto. It's hilarious. Every day, someone joins and wants to tell the world about their most amazing crypto currency that has just become available. They're playing on the greed of people who want to get rich quick. And they pump and dump their worthless coins. A month later, you see several people asking, "What just happened to my s-tcoin?" ("s" meaning the swear word for poo.)

What do people have to gain from converting others? Crypto is like a religion. Some people need others to convert to crypto so they feel good. Others are trying to pump up the price so they can sell at the peak.

I made my decision. There was a lot of research that went into that decision. I was not the source of the information. I read Satoshi's White Paper. I spoke with hodlers. I subscribed to newsletters written by people who manage billions of dollars for others. And I spent a lot of time reading anti-Bitcoin materials. In the end, I decided on my "truth". I could be wrong. My "truth" might change in the future, maybe even tomorrow. I am old enough to know that I've been wrong on several occasions, especially when I was previously convinced I was right.

So there are several sources of "truth" among the nonsense and scammers. But I make my own decisions on where to put my money. I'm the one who has to live with those choices.

Where does the truth about finance come from? There are several researchers, experts, books, and blogs. Some of them are excellent. Some of them are flat out fraudulent. But some of them are telling the truth. I am the one who decides who to believe. But I'm not the source of truth.

I could go on. But I caution others who would listen not to be their own source of truth. Be a good researcher. Be a skeptic. Learn how to debunk nonsense. And learn how to do it with diplomacy. Then make judgments based on research, experience, and your own situation.

I could be wrong. I'm not married to my ideas.

T-Bone

While this applies to all the categories T-Bone lists, with regard to romance........

>Romance: I'm the only person on the face of the earth who knows what kind of woman I want to spend my time with, whether to get married, and whether to have children. There might be "sources of truth" but I'm the one who has to decide what is right for me.


Considering divorce statistics, the generic "I" doesn't know what kind of [person] they want to spend their time with, in a pretty fair percentage of cases.

All knowledge is provisional.

I trust my own judgment. I weigh the evidence and arguments made by others.

What I think a lot of people overlook is bias. If two sources are claiming different things then I look at the evidence and arguments made by BOTH sources and then dig into THEIR sources to see if they are accurately portraying the original sources.

But I also keep aware of whether their personal bias or agenda is affecting the conclusions they reach.

Case in point. My parents won't get any of the COVID vaccines because they read that they are killing people and there is a conspiracy to depopulate the earth with this vaccine. Well, if I only read their sources, I might be convinced. But when I spend enough time digging into those sources and cross checking against sources with the opposite conclusions, I start to see the bias affecting the anti-vaccers "research" and claims. I dig further and see that all these so-called medical "experts" were already anti-vaccine promoters before Covid was even a thing. I also see that they were generally anti-government, anti-mainstream science, and were all anti-Democrats. Most of them were in the business of selling natural supplements and "end times" merchandise.

It's my job to determine who is allowing their bias to affect their conclusions.

In this case it’s My Government’s and the nation’s leading Epidemiologist, shifting narrative on the origins of the virus. A year ago, he assured the world that this thing came from wild animal in China. He was very clear and authoritative and declarative about it, with the POTUS (who said it was China Lab Leak all along) standing over his shoulder trying to intimidate the little Italian kid from Brooklyn.
The WHO, who we quit funding a year ago, investigated the issue and determined, officially, that it Did NOT come from a Lab Leak.
There were scientists going on Bill Maher raising the issue. Everybody, including me, dismissed them as crackpots. My wife doesn’t hate many people, but she HATES that particular scientist, who destroyed a college that never recovered and is still a sinking ship nobody in their right minds would want to Captain. 3 finalists for President all withdrew their names, together. Now they have to have an ‘Interrim President’ all the bloated leadership is ‘interim’ because nobody wants the jobs.
Why?
Because faculty could not remain ‘collegial’ toward one another.

But now it turns out that scientist was probably right?

Huh.

Never woulda thought...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2021 12:12AM by schrodingerscat.

A lot of weird replies to a simple question. -Cat derangement syndrome, it seems.

I posted a partial list elsewhere. I don’t trust that they get it always right, but I do trust that getting it right is their goal, is what they are trying to do, and that they aren’t covering for other agendas etc.

The good news is that trust in those who have no problem getting it exactly wrong, who behave as though stenography is journalism, the MSM, is declining precipitously, especially the younger the demographic. That is good news:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

~9% in U.S. trust mass media "a great deal" and 31% "a fair amount"

~27% have "not very much" trust and 33% "none at all"

~The percentage with no trust at all is a record high, up five points since 2019


The bad news is that the proposed “fix” to this declining trust in the MSM is to suppress, smear, and outright censor everything that competes with it. The MSM likes lying in the dark.

Here is the question asked in this poll:

"In general, how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media—such as newspapers, TV and radio—when it comes to reporting the news fully, accurately, and fairly—a great deal, a fair amount, not very much or none at all?"

Given the fact that "mass media" is defined to include only traditional mass media sources ("newspapers, TV, and radio"), while excluding mass media internet sources (including presumably the online sites of "newspapers" like the NT Times and the Washington Post), the survey is heavily biased against such traditional sources, and in favor of internet sources.

Moreover, since the general trend is clearly towards the internet as a source for news and away from traditional media, this poll tells us next to nothing about how the general public views traditional media as reliable sources for news, because for over a decade that is not where people have looked to get their news. Thus, people don't but their trust in traditional media because that is not where they are getting their news. It is like asking people who rely solely on email whether they trust the postal service. The fact that the vast majority of people use email says nothing about the reliability of the post office.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-media-internet-life-idUSTRE55G4XA20090617

In short, the cited Gallop poll is absolutely worthless as a gage for trustworthiness of the MSM. It tells us nothing about where people are getting their news and why they view such sources as more trustworthy than the sources where they do not get their news--if indeed trustworthiness is the motivation for their preference. Moreover, there is no attempt to differentiate between sources within a given media. Obviously, there are internet sources that are much, much worse that MSM sources for reliable news. Finally, it tells us nothing about how people are "programmed" against MSM by false narratives promulgated by political and social interest groups.

Finally, is it fair to say that *you* trusted Gallop as a source for news about social trends? How does this reliance compare to your distrust of MSM. It seems more and more that your "reliance" gage is finely tuned to your preferred point of view; which is probably the case for all of us.

I have challenged your anti-MSM rhetoric before, but haven't gotten a response. Here are my questions for you (and others):

Rather than simply identifying your preferred "trustworthy" news sources; what *criteria* do you have for placing such a source on your list--over and above the fact that they are telling you what you want to hear? In other words, what objectively makes one news source trustworthy and another not trustworthy--again besides the specific content or slant of the story itself? And, finally, how do you judge a news source's motives, other than assuming ill intent if they do not confirm your preferred point of view and its source?

It's a feelings thing. If you feel trust, you're trusting.

ProjectVeritas and wikileaks

Well, that covers everything except science, technology, visual arts, music, literature, philosophy, commerce, and the finer points of lawn care.

There are certainly 1000s of truthful links to those topics.

I guess even a dead clock is right twice a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMGWLLDSA3c

There seems to be a notion in the mainstream these days that if you want a second opinion, you should go back to the people who gave you the first one.

There are advantages to having editors and lawyers and editorial policies about having to have multiple reliable sources before reporting something. That way, when you get hit with a defamation suit, you just send it over to legal, rather than wetting your pants and broadcasting a “hostage video” recanting the report.

So yes, if you need a second opinion, looking to an organization that actually cares about its reputation is a good idea.