4 ms·

I checked Snopes and it seems this is not entirely bogus. A bit speculative perhaps. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-titanic/ https:/

by LeonB 8y ago

I checked Snopes and it seems this is not entirely bogus. A bit speculative perhaps. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-titanic/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/06/coal-fire-sink-the-ti...

Gibbon1 8y ago
My grandfather mentioned having to deal with a coal fire in the bunker at the high school he managed, over the winter break. If it'd been during the school year he could have got 25 teenage boys to do it. But it was just him and the maintenance guy shoveling out 20 tons of coal. Smoldering coal bunkers had to be a common occurrence on steam ships.
coldtea 8y ago
Not like snopes (a random internet website) is some expert authority on such matters.
- Domark 8y ago
  Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    So like any e.g. conspiracy theorist site out there? They too try to "debunk incorrect narratives" (as they see it). Why trust some random non-expert volunteers running a site and their citations (which could be biased).
    - Fjolsvith 8y ago
      At least they make an effort to support their arguments with some research. Calling them non-expert volunteers is prejudging them before even considering their position and determining whether it is valid or not by providing supporting or opposing citations.
      - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
        Or maybe we are not prejudging enough. "If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?" 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...
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        Fjolsvith 8y ago
        Or maybe we are just focusing on who is weighing in on matters instead of measuring it ourselves.
        onlydeadheroes 8y ago
        We went from "Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives" to "employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers" I think we achieved something important here, in spite of it all.
- MrTonyD 8y ago
  I've stopped reading all those "fact check" web sites. They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. (Now that I think about it, that is also a common problem to technical people too. Failing to recognize the shortcomings of data and measurements.)
  - krapp 8y ago
    >They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. "Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact. In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes. But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics. When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation. Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
      - ataturk 8y ago
        Well, it's a fact that guns were moving from the US to Mexico in fairly large numbers. The media, during the late Bush and the early Obama Administration, although they knew what was really going on, were placing blame on guns being too available in the US. Turns out, however, that it was our own government making the whole thing operate in what they called an attempt to trace where the guns would end up. But of course that was just a cover story when they got caught because (and here's where "facts" end up diverging and what gets us into trouble) really the whole maneuver was about creating a casus belli for softening up the public to accept a policy change (better known as gun prohibition). Meanwhile, all the non-government people, like the gun dealers, were desperately trying to do the right thing but were being threatened with prosecution if they blew the whistle. This is sickening behavior on the part of our government. Barely anyone was punished for it, either. Here is how all this stuff gets started: 1) A behavior is observed 2) Some murky facts exist 3) Media and other poorly informed, lacking expertise people run with the story and apply their agenda to it however they please, either at the behest of their political masters or just because it sells eyeballs 4) Many stupid things happen 5) The public ends up even less well informed, more confused, and generally angrier and agitated, often less free 6) The usual suspects triumph no matter what because dividing people and confusing them is good for them overall Thus, nothing ever gets cleared up unless the facts are so clear and so obvious that even an IQ 60 person gets smacked in the face with them, which isn't often the case. You know who broke the Fast & Furious case wide open? A regular guy, not investigative journalists!
- Angostura 8y ago
  But it is as if Snopes carefully sets out the reasoning, evidence and sources used to reach its comnclusions. Which means that you can look at the evidence and decide whether you wish to come to a different conclusion. Do you?

by LeonB 8y ago

Gibbon1 8y ago

My grandfather mentioned having to deal with a coal fire in the bunker at the high school he managed, over the winter break. If it'd been during the school year he could have got 25 teenage boys to do it. But it was just him and the maintenance guy shoveling out 20 tons of coal. Smoldering coal bunkers had to be a common occurrence on steam ships.

coldtea 8y ago

Not like snopes (a random internet website) is some expert authority on such matters.

Domark 8y ago
Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives.
- coldtea 8y ago
  So like any e.g. conspiracy theorist site out there? They too try to "debunk incorrect narratives" (as they see it). Why trust some random non-expert volunteers running a site and their citations (which could be biased).
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    At least they make an effort to support their arguments with some research. Calling them non-expert volunteers is prejudging them before even considering their position and determining whether it is valid or not by providing supporting or opposing citations.
    - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
      Or maybe we are not prejudging enough. "If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?" 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...
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - Fjolsvith 8y ago
        Or maybe we are just focusing on who is weighing in on matters instead of measuring it ourselves.
        onlydeadheroes 8y ago
        We went from "Except the site specifically tries to debunk incorrect narratives" to "employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers" I think we achieved something important here, in spite of it all.
MrTonyD 8y ago
I've stopped reading all those "fact check" web sites. They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. (Now that I think about it, that is also a common problem to technical people too. Failing to recognize the shortcomings of data and measurements.)
- krapp 8y ago
  >They seem to be literalists who can't hear the actual meaning of things being said. Everything is just about measurements while ignoring reality. "Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >"Facts" are about literal, objective, measurable reality. If it depends on a subjective interpretation and reading between the lines, then it isn't a fact. In physics, chemistry, math, etc. facts are the order of the day, yes. But raw facts are few and far between in human affairs and even less so in politics. When people say something in non-hard-science domains, it more often than not depends on a "subjective interpretation", and depending on their phrasing, hidden motives, and eloquence might also need some "reading between the lines" or some charitable interpretation. Nerds applying Vulcan-style logic to such claims just confuse matters more.
    - ataturk 8y ago
      Well, it's a fact that guns were moving from the US to Mexico in fairly large numbers. The media, during the late Bush and the early Obama Administration, although they knew what was really going on, were placing blame on guns being too available in the US. Turns out, however, that it was our own government making the whole thing operate in what they called an attempt to trace where the guns would end up. But of course that was just a cover story when they got caught because (and here's where "facts" end up diverging and what gets us into trouble) really the whole maneuver was about creating a casus belli for softening up the public to accept a policy change (better known as gun prohibition). Meanwhile, all the non-government people, like the gun dealers, were desperately trying to do the right thing but were being threatened with prosecution if they blew the whistle. This is sickening behavior on the part of our government. Barely anyone was punished for it, either. Here is how all this stuff gets started: 1) A behavior is observed 2) Some murky facts exist 3) Media and other poorly informed, lacking expertise people run with the story and apply their agenda to it however they please, either at the behest of their political masters or just because it sells eyeballs 4) Many stupid things happen 5) The public ends up even less well informed, more confused, and generally angrier and agitated, often less free 6) The usual suspects triumph no matter what because dividing people and confusing them is good for them overall Thus, nothing ever gets cleared up unless the facts are so clear and so obvious that even an IQ 60 person gets smacked in the face with them, which isn't often the case. You know who broke the Fast & Furious case wide open? A regular guy, not investigative journalists!
Angostura 8y ago
But it is as if Snopes carefully sets out the reasoning, evidence and sources used to reach its comnclusions. Which means that you can look at the evidence and decide whether you wish to come to a different conclusion. Do you?