3 ms·

> I distrust most media sources because I've not once seen one present rigorous, transparent, verifiable research about a current event of interest to me. "Bec

> I distrust most media sources because I've not once seen one present rigorous, transparent, verifiable research about a current event of interest to me. "Because I've never seen it, clearly it does not exist."

Brian_K_White 6y ago
"I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" That's called faith and religion. You cannot rationally make decisions based on anything other than what you know and have seen or can reasonably project from there. IE, I can't see an atom with my eyes, and I can't duplicate all the research of history myself, but I can see some things with my eyesb and I can duplicate some research myself, and I can follow a reasonable, logical, defensible chain of trust from what I can directly prove to myself, to proofs I can accept indirectly, and distinguish those from fairy tales.
- SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
  > "I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" Except I never said that, whereas the previous post had a congruent summary of OP. Strike one. > You cannot rationally make decisions based on anything other than what you know and have seen or can reasonably project from there. True. But that isn't what we are talking about, you ventured into strawman territory all on your own. The person was claiming they've never seen a truthful source, this is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. We're not talking about god, we're talking about the fact that some journalism is unbiased. There is much of it out there, but OP seems to think there isn't, or has convinced him/herself due to their own desire to not be wrong. Strike two. > can follow a reasonable, logical, defensible chain of trust from what I can directly prove to myself, to proofs I can accept indirectly, and distinguish those from fairy tales. You've demonstrated that you aren't very good at following a "logical chain of trust" because you've reasoned to yourself, poorly, something that wasn't even being discussed. Strike three. First time playing with logic? It never ceases to astonish me how people who throw around the terms "logic" and "rational thought" really, reeeeeally don't know how to deploy either.
NateEag 6y ago
I did not even imply it does not exist, let alone say it. That would be a truly massive claim. However, if I've yet to see it, I don't know why I'd trust that it's happening regularly just outside my view. Until I see evidence that it exists and is in fact the default state of journalistic reporting, I am not going to trust that it is.

Brian_K_White 6y ago

"I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" That's called faith and religion. You cannot rationally make decisions based on anything other than what you know and have seen or can reasonably project from there. IE, I can't see an atom with my eyes, and I can't duplicate all the research of history myself, but I can see some things with my eyesb and I can duplicate some research myself, and I can follow a reasonable, logical, defensible chain of trust from what I can directly prove to myself, to proofs I can accept indirectly, and distinguish those from fairy tales.

SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
> "I have no reason to believe this, but it clearly must exist" Except I never said that, whereas the previous post had a congruent summary of OP. Strike one. > You cannot rationally make decisions based on anything other than what you know and have seen or can reasonably project from there. True. But that isn't what we are talking about, you ventured into strawman territory all on your own. The person was claiming they've never seen a truthful source, this is called the No True Scotsman fallacy. We're not talking about god, we're talking about the fact that some journalism is unbiased. There is much of it out there, but OP seems to think there isn't, or has convinced him/herself due to their own desire to not be wrong. Strike two. > can follow a reasonable, logical, defensible chain of trust from what I can directly prove to myself, to proofs I can accept indirectly, and distinguish those from fairy tales. You've demonstrated that you aren't very good at following a "logical chain of trust" because you've reasoned to yourself, poorly, something that wasn't even being discussed. Strike three. First time playing with logic? It never ceases to astonish me how people who throw around the terms "logic" and "rational thought" really, reeeeeally don't know how to deploy either.

NateEag 6y ago

I did not even imply it does not exist, let alone say it. That would be a truly massive claim. However, if I've yet to see it, I don't know why I'd trust that it's happening regularly just outside my view. Until I see evidence that it exists and is in fact the default state of journalistic reporting, I am not going to trust that it is.