3 ms·
> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths
by justinlaster 10y ago
> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted.
Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"Factual reporting" according to whom?
- justinlaster 10y agoAccording to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
- Turing_Machine 10y agoA great deal of what Snopes does (particularly in recent years) is much closer to "opinion" than "fact", especially when they start labeling things "mostly false" or "mostly true" or whatever. You can't do that when you're dealing with actual facts.
- justinlaster 10y agoYes you can. What in the world? You can definitely say something that is partially true. That's what conspiracy theories are built off of: a tinge of truth. "The sky is blue because other stars reflect blue light onto our atmosphere." How would you rate that, given Snopes' scales? Do you have any specific examples where there was a concise yet opinionated decision on any published articles from Snopes that don't rely on hard evidence for their conclusion?