If you make any claim and present it as fact you MUST

originally posted by: BrokedownChevy
Show us your data! Not from some random news article that the daily mail posted, not from what your mom or dad told you the other day, and certainly not from any .com

Start with .edu and then people will start to take you seriously.

Stop being so easily sold into slavery. Good grief this place is ripe with bad information.

Show us your data that this will make people take us seriously if we do. Because I don't believe you.

Dont worry op, you Will learn quickly that posting someones blog as fact with be greeted with stars and flags.

Reality as escaped this place lol, beware.

a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I'd advise that you add the addendum that the information should be of good quality even on .edu sites. Not all of those articles are fact checked. There are also plentiful quantities of .org sites that are of high quality.

But the general gist of this argument I'd agree with yes. It's astounding how few people know how to actually provide research. Then when questioned they simply say that "you're just being close minded." There's a difference between being open minded and being a shill though...

originally posted by: Shugo
a reply to: BrokedownChevy

I'd advise that you add the addendum that the information should be of good quality even on .edu sites. Not all of those articles are fact checked. There are also plentiful quantities of .org sites that are of high quality.

But the general gist of this argument I'd agree with yes. It's astounding how few people know how to actually provide research. Then when questioned they simply say that "you're just being close minded." There's a difference between being open minded and being a shill though...

Here's the thing. Not all facts can be fact checked by an .edu website. If I film a protest tomorrow & film 2 protesters getting beaten to death, what .edu website is going to prove that? Why can't I link to the video instead?

Besides, not only are all articles written by academics not fact checked, but many are simply wrong, biased, or built on assumptions. If I link to a book about eugenics or racial theories, are they now valid to the OP? Even though they've been proven false? And what about the multitude of conflicting studies about nearly everything, from climate change to the harmful or beneficial effects of alcohol? How can they all be true when they conflict with each other?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

2 things...

First, that's exactly what I was saying. A domain extension does not represent the quality of the information it provides.

Second, if you are placing stock in a single source and single academic paper, then you've failed doing your research. Academic papers are typically peer reviewed, they typically are cited with other sources, they typically have a stance and opinion. That's part of what being an academic is. But they're also not designed to be the end of the road in a persons quest for knowledge and research. Again, if that's what you think an academic paper should be, you've done it wrong. However, to simply dismiss them as "wrong, biased and built purely on assumption" is also exaggerated.

The only thing the edu domain extension can provide is backlink quality to another website.

But that has nothing to do with the information quality as suggested.

Nice to see ya again Shugo.

Many members of ATS hardly use the effort to take the time to research properly. Usually it a link to a youtube video with the post of WATCH THIS or just some other website that the OP has just parroted a quote snippet and expected us to agree with its so called truths. Mainly because it is the fault of the OP's ego. Sometimes it is deliberate misinformation both on the part of the OP or and the website. Other times it is because the information feeds into the posters set of ideals and clouds the process of critical thinking - which is hard for many to do because of all the main stream media of western news networks, each one advancing agendas of political and financial aspects.

Below is just one of many links that publish deep search engines that publish quality and quantity that the greater and all powerful Google, Bing, Yahoo et al fail at providing, at least without all the other less reputable corporate flooding the search result rankings which makes it difficult to find good wholesome information data.


Academic search engines

So the OP is right in a way but even within the link to the search websites one still has to take a few days or more to compare the data found and make a analysis of judgement. But in this fast-food information war that the main stream media present to us, one after the other to keep us dizzy and afraid where as soon as reports are televised and printed it is interesting, at least to me, to watch all of that garbage rehashed and posted on ATS by members looking to get that special exclusive so they can declare 'I was right' in a I'm so fancy, you already know remember my name its about to blow'.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Who knew a rant saying you should back your claims up would be meet with such opposition.
Denying ignorance right.

I did.
And something tells me deep down....
that you did too.

a reply to: RoadCourse

But we know the opening post was loaded big time. Opposition was not only expected, but built into the initial statement.

Its all good.

Can't always back up a claim with the best and most reliable proofs.

I've had the mods remove posts because they said I posted the same "proofs" too many times in too many threads.
They called it cut and paste. But they were the very best and most respected "proofs" and I was forbidden from using them further.
Most of us tend to gravitate toward the same subjects over and over and so maybe the "proofs" have been used too often and are now
not allowed to be used.

Also, as for .edu, I know from first hand knowledge that "studies" are not always reliable. These days "peer reviewed" means, you rubber stamp my findings and I'll rubber stamp yours. That is why one day this thing is bad for you and the next the same thing is good for you.

Sometimes, something has been on ATS in other threads so often that the writer makes the assumption that "everyone" knows that the experts say....... I've been guilty of that, especially if I posted a good proof of assertion on another thread, rather than get my post censured, I'll say something like that.

Be careful when you throw stones
you've entered a glass house at ATS.

Good seeing you again too smirks! Still trying to figure out if it's ATS that's changed or if it's me. Though I'm leaning to the later. lol

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Also, as for .edu, I know from first hand knowledge that "studies" are not always reliable. These days "peer reviewed" means, you rubber stamp my findings and I'll rubber stamp yours. That is why one day this thing is bad for you and the next the same thing is good for you.

I don't totally agree with that. It does happen in some fields, and with certain individual researchers, but it is not the common practice and norm by any means. That being said, there's a specific reason why academic researchers must provide sources and citation of their own in any paper or project they create. What one person reads of the paper, and then of the citations may be a totally different result than what the original author saw. It's why research is so complex that it's almost an art form in of itself.

You have to utilize a set of sources, of which have their own sources, which may in turn have their own sources. This cycle could continue for 3 to 7 tiers or more. But at the end of that research, you should be able to command a discussion on the subject, the sources and then some. That's how you do research.

a reply to: Shugo

Its us that have changed. Hell, we have been members here for over a decade. I would have hoped we have changed in some fashion.