3 ms·

You're welcome to challenge their items on a line by line basis. Type it out, I'll wait. There are also lots of other sources. I think playing up a 'no true sc

You're welcome to challenge their items on a line by line basis. Type it out, I'll wait. There are also lots of other sources. I think playing up a 'no true scotsman' just empowers the liars because at a certain point you're just arguing that truth cannot be verified by anyone.

deadmetheny 8y ago
They have no valid credentials other than having been on the Internet a long time and having an interest in researching urban legends as laymen. One of the founders, David Mikkelson, couldn't answer questions about fact-checking due to legal issues[1]. If you really want to play the "HN says the names of logical fallacies" game, then I'll do you one better and say that challenging me to refute every single line item is an appeal to authority and we should just trust them because everyone says we should. There's no reason to believe them any more than there's a reason to believe much of anything published on somebody's personal website. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
- GW150914 8y ago
  This is a reversed appeal to authority, and the fact that you keep attacking “credentials” rather than anything solid is telling. As Vkou said, they cite their sources. I’ll take that over vague hand-waving around credentials any day. Like people who dismiss Wikipedia, the issue is that you need a case-by-case basis to dismiss cited works.
- drzaiusapelord 8y ago
  Again, you're doing everything but addressing the claims. Again, if I was to link to WashPo or NYTimes, you'd dismiss them as well. Again, you're just covering for the liars of the world.
  - deadmetheny 8y ago
    I have made no claims other that Snopes itself is not a reliable source, and I have given my reasoning behind why I am of that mind. Kindly piss off with your assumptions of anything beyond that claim.
    - Chriky 8y ago
      They weren't appealing to authority though. An appeal to authority is "It's true because Snopes says so", they just linked to Snopes' reasoning as a shorthand for repeating the reasoning themselves. If Snopes didn't provide their reasoning, it would be an appeal to authority.
Andre_Wanglin 8y ago
You are defending the expert status of indisputable laymen by demanding a line by line refutation of everything they have ever written? And this seems not merely reasonable to you but you perceive it as upholding good reasoning and logic itself?
makomk 8y ago
Every single one of Snopes' items could be correct and it wouldn't save your argument, because you're relying on the idea that what Snopes chooses to debunk is an unbiased representation of who actually tells more lies.

deadmetheny 8y ago

They have no valid credentials other than having been on the Internet a long time and having an interest in researching urban legends as laymen. One of the founders, David Mikkelson, couldn't answer questions about fact-checking due to legal issues[1]. If you really want to play the "HN says the names of logical fallacies" game, then I'll do you one better and say that challenging me to refute every single line item is an appeal to authority and we should just trust them because everyone says we should. There's no reason to believe them any more than there's a reason to believe much of anything published on somebody's personal website. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

GW150914 8y ago
This is a reversed appeal to authority, and the fact that you keep attacking “credentials” rather than anything solid is telling. As Vkou said, they cite their sources. I’ll take that over vague hand-waving around credentials any day. Like people who dismiss Wikipedia, the issue is that you need a case-by-case basis to dismiss cited works.
drzaiusapelord 8y ago
Again, you're doing everything but addressing the claims. Again, if I was to link to WashPo or NYTimes, you'd dismiss them as well. Again, you're just covering for the liars of the world.
- deadmetheny 8y ago
  I have made no claims other that Snopes itself is not a reliable source, and I have given my reasoning behind why I am of that mind. Kindly piss off with your assumptions of anything beyond that claim.
  - Chriky 8y ago
    They weren't appealing to authority though. An appeal to authority is "It's true because Snopes says so", they just linked to Snopes' reasoning as a shorthand for repeating the reasoning themselves. If Snopes didn't provide their reasoning, it would be an appeal to authority.

Andre_Wanglin 8y ago

You are defending the expert status of indisputable laymen by demanding a line by line refutation of everything they have ever written? And this seems not merely reasonable to you but you perceive it as upholding good reasoning and logic itself?

makomk 8y ago

Every single one of Snopes' items could be correct and it wouldn't save your argument, because you're relying on the idea that what Snopes chooses to debunk is an unbiased representation of who actually tells more lies.