3 ms·

> Nothing about this article seems untrustworthy. You got it reversed. What about it seems trustworthy? Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has

> Nothing about this article seems untrustworthy. You got it reversed. What about it seems trustworthy? Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it. > Politico is a highly trustworthy paper Trust-proof should be per-concrete-article, not per publication. > Your comment seems out of place. [Citation needed] :-) -- Seriously, I don't see anything wrong. Okay, you dislike the opinion, I get it.

habnds 7y ago
Isn't the reputation of a publication a legitimate part of evaluating an article? Your attitude seems very close to a position that we can never truly know anything.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  No, GP's position seems to be closer to "actually being sure about something requires more evidence than has been given".
  - Faark 7y ago
    To me it feels more like "more evidence can ever realistically be available, especially on intelligence operations, thus i can just ignore articles with content I don't like". Especially the attack on reputation worries me, since this is pretty much the only thing left to go on for average humans without unlimited time.
    - habnds 7y ago
      right, at best it's crippling. At worst it becomes a device for dismissing any news that is inconsistent with one's worldview. "That probably isn't even true."
pixl97 7y ago
> What about it seems trustworthy? That Israeli spies have been caught multiple times in the US, spying. If you've have a history of murdering people, I'm at least going to give some attention to the people saying you've murdered again.
RyanAF7 7y ago
> Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it. That's not what Russel says. It's unfalsifiable claims, not just "claims". An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The burden of proof isn't about citations it's about providing sufficiently justified reasoning for a belief.

habnds 7y ago

Isn't the reputation of a publication a legitimate part of evaluating an article? Your attitude seems very close to a position that we can never truly know anything.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
No, GP's position seems to be closer to "actually being sure about something requires more evidence than has been given".
- Faark 7y ago
  To me it feels more like "more evidence can ever realistically be available, especially on intelligence operations, thus i can just ignore articles with content I don't like". Especially the attack on reputation worries me, since this is pretty much the only thing left to go on for average humans without unlimited time.
  - habnds 7y ago
    right, at best it's crippling. At worst it becomes a device for dismissing any news that is inconsistent with one's worldview. "That probably isn't even true."

pixl97 7y ago

> What about it seems trustworthy? That Israeli spies have been caught multiple times in the US, spying. If you've have a history of murdering people, I'm at least going to give some attention to the people saying you've murdered again.

RyanAF7 7y ago

> Russel's teapot and all that, the one making claims has to prove it, not others have to disprove it. That's not what Russel says. It's unfalsifiable claims, not just "claims". An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The burden of proof isn't about citations it's about providing sufficiently justified reasoning for a belief.