4 ms·

Wrong how?

by iseanstevens 5y ago

Wrong how?

labrador 5y ago
Watch it and start fact checking as you go along. It's mostly "facts" for entertainment purposes.
- MilnerRoute 5y ago
  Just following up. So by putting "facts" in quotation marks, you're saying that they're not real facts (and implying inaccuracy). Are there specific examples you'd want to share? I remember that show as a roaring river of information, all delivered with Burke's speedy narration. So if there's something that seems off after 40-plus years, I think I'd still be inclined to accept the larger context of information in which it appears.
  - labrador 5y ago
    From my other comment: > his claim that freeze drying was invented by the coffee industry in S. America because they had extra beans is easily proven false by 2 minutes of research The show should be called "Associations" because that would be more accurate. He puts things together that have no connection beyond sharing one or two properties. I loved the show, don't get my wrong, but viewing it later in life showed me it wasn't what I thought it was
    - eesmith 5y ago
      He doesn't say it was invented by the coffee industry in S. America. He says it was invented by the Nestlé company. Starting at 1:49 at https://archive.org/details/connections-1-04-faith-in-numbers/Connections+3-05+Life+Is+No+Picnic.mp4 https://archive.org/details/connections-1-04-faith-in-number... he describes how Brazil has a coffee surplus, there's no way to sell it all, then Nestlé comes up with the answer.
- salawat 5y ago
  I would recommend not playing historian if you aren't going to follow through with primary sources; as history is descriptive, and dynamic as new information and documentation comes to light; a great deal of time being spent by actual historians of resolving the implications on new finds on the existing records. I'm not saying not to do it mind, but it's easier to come forward with concrete examples. I see several others are already running things down, but in an environment where attention is the primary constraint, it is often considered polite to bring your citations with you. That way everyone can quickly home in on the relevant info. I'm not going to get on the soapbox on what passes for fact-checking these days. Any college student in a history class probably knows why the contemporary notion is... less than ideal.

Wrong how?

labrador 5y ago

Watch it and start fact checking as you go along. It's mostly "facts" for entertainment purposes.

MilnerRoute 5y ago
Just following up. So by putting "facts" in quotation marks, you're saying that they're not real facts (and implying inaccuracy). Are there specific examples you'd want to share? I remember that show as a roaring river of information, all delivered with Burke's speedy narration. So if there's something that seems off after 40-plus years, I think I'd still be inclined to accept the larger context of information in which it appears.
- labrador 5y ago
  From my other comment: > his claim that freeze drying was invented by the coffee industry in S. America because they had extra beans is easily proven false by 2 minutes of research The show should be called "Associations" because that would be more accurate. He puts things together that have no connection beyond sharing one or two properties. I loved the show, don't get my wrong, but viewing it later in life showed me it wasn't what I thought it was
  - eesmith 5y ago
    He doesn't say it was invented by the coffee industry in S. America. He says it was invented by the Nestlé company. Starting at 1:49 at https://archive.org/details/connections-1-04-faith-in-numbers/Connections+3-05+Life+Is+No+Picnic.mp4 https://archive.org/details/connections-1-04-faith-in-number... he describes how Brazil has a coffee surplus, there's no way to sell it all, then Nestlé comes up with the answer.
salawat 5y ago
I would recommend not playing historian if you aren't going to follow through with primary sources; as history is descriptive, and dynamic as new information and documentation comes to light; a great deal of time being spent by actual historians of resolving the implications on new finds on the existing records. I'm not saying not to do it mind, but it's easier to come forward with concrete examples. I see several others are already running things down, but in an environment where attention is the primary constraint, it is often considered polite to bring your citations with you. That way everyone can quickly home in on the relevant info. I'm not going to get on the soapbox on what passes for fact-checking these days. Any college student in a history class probably knows why the contemporary notion is... less than ideal.