3 ms·

All these are examples of claims that are misleading because they're misleading, not because of who is making the claim. You can of course read the claims made

• viraptor 10y ago
  > All these are examples of claims that are misleading because they're misleading, not because of who is making the claim. I think you've got it the other way around. Claims like that would not exist in the first place if someone wasn't either ignorant or purposefully trying to mislead you. > identifying the author doesn't automagically lift the responsibility of coming up with a refutation. I never said it does. But what it changes, is that once you figure out what their biases are, you know what kind of facts are they may be omitting, or know where to look for opposing opinions.
  • hueving 10y ago
    >you know what kind of facts are they may be omitting, or know where to look for opposing opinions. No, that's being lazy. If you follow that guideline you would only scrutinize things which fit into your preconceived notion of what the biases of the author would be. You should scrutinize everything rigorously. Just because someone is voting for Hillary doesn't give them free reign to say any negative thing they want about renewable energy since they "aren't biased that way".
    • viraptor 10y ago
      Never said you shouldn't look in other directions. Sure, you can look in all the possible places. It's better if you do. But unless I'm going to write a report and spend a few hours/days doing a complete research, finding opposing views (and opposing views to those views) is a good approximation.