3 ms·
It's credible to you because you want it to believe. The article doesn't say what the department of energy thinks went into that supposed lab and what came out
by bayesian_horse 4y ago
It's credible to you because you want it to believe. The article doesn't say what the department of energy thinks went into that supposed lab and what came out of it. Which is a major piece of the puzzle I'd say.
- Zetice 4y agoEr, it's credible to me because it's the Department of Energy. I don't "want" to believe it, and generally believe folks who were touting it as fact up to this point were cranks. Even now it's still extremely murky, and as I said, there are a lot of unanswered questions.
- wahnfrieden 4y agowhy is it credible to you when you can as easily find contrary positions from other us govt agencies? what makes a "low confidence" doe take more credible than the other agencies to you
- Zetice 4y agoHm, so the way I'm using "credible" here is as, "able to be believed". So I find the DoE and therefore the idea credible. It doesn't mean I do believe it, or that I find other, contradicting positions "uncredible" (incredible? lol). The DoE is just an institution I trust, and if they're willing to publish this, I'm willing to listen to what they have to say.
- Vecr 4y agoI've heard through channels that the opposite of "credible" is "non-credible".