4 ms·
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to m
by justinpombrio 13y ago
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
- sliverstorm 13y agowhy should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence. So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?
- justinpombrio 13y agoExcept for the fact that there are more false statements than true ones...
- sliverstorm 13y agoSsshh, pay no mind to the man behind the curtain.
- logfromblammo 13y agoThat appears to be a conjecture worthy of a thesis in philosophy and/or mathematics. And where do statements of indeterminate truthfulness fit in?