It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fact or Hearsay?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Is one of the biggest credibility problems faced by the conspiracists the practice of stating heresay as fact?

Are the majority of posters on ATS merely armchair fringe dwellers with no real personal experience in anything outside of the establishment box?

Is this constant and never ending regurgitation of unresearched, unsubstantiated blah blah harming the fringe movement more than the establishment ever could?

Is personal experience the only true source of real knowledge, or are we forced to believe complete strangers with imaginary names if we are to educate ourselves in 'truth'?

Instead of posting, should most of us shut up and read when our egos tempt us to contribute our 'own' opinions, expressed as fact?

---------------------------
Mod edit - title spelling



[edit on 13/8/07 by masqua]




posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Instead of posting, should most of us shut up and read when our egos tempt us to contribute our 'own' opinions, expressed as fact?


Perhaps, but at that point it also puts the community here at ATS at risk for being spoon fed propaganda and disinformation by whomever deems themselves an expert and has the bully pulpit.

One thing to remember perspective is everything. One mans freedom fighter is another s insurgent. They are all basically the same thing, except for your perspective. The same would could be said about "no real personal experience in anything outside of the establishment box". Who is to say that the person with experience is the real deal? Or a false prophet?

In this manner everyone gets thier say, we each filter out the message based on life experience (practical or otherwise). Such is the way of discussion.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It should work like this.
Say FredT posts some article about some research.
If you or I have an opinion it, and it matters to us, then we go digging for more information. If we have information that contradicts FredT's posting then post it.
People who read the material can click the links if they wish and make up their own minds.

I don't believe anything anyone says here.
If its interesting enough and researchable I'll look into it.
If it sounds like the ravings a person whose mind is shattered, I'll say so.

ATS is not dogma!



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by RogerT
Instead of posting, should most of us shut up and read when our egos tempt us to contribute our 'own' opinions, expressed as fact?


In this manner everyone gets thier say, we each filter out the message based on life experience (practical or otherwise). Such is the way of discussion.


Yes of course that's the best policy for an open discussion forum, but I was suggesting we as individuals make an effort to exercise a little restraint in expressing what may well be someone elses fiction as accepted fact. Isn't that what so many of us here accuse the mainstream media of?

Then again, the boards probably wouldn't be as much fun without the dogma
The sparring is what draws the crowds not the education.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Yes of course that's the best policy for an open discussion forum, but I was suggesting we as individuals make an effort to exercise a little restraint in expressing what may well be someone elses fiction as accepted fact. Isn't that what so many of us here accuse the mainstream media of?


If that's "the best policy" why do we need a "but"? "Best" means that it can't be surpassed. That makes "but" a little redundant wouldn't you think?


The sparring is what draws the crowds not the education.


This I would also have to disagree with. I wouldn't say education, that's a formal term BUT the search of knowledge is the key, not the sparring.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Problem is most of us don't have the opportunity of living or knowing what others have. At some point you got to trust others. Sceptics always say that a personnal testimony is worthless, that's its all lies, that they need a 'tangible' proof. Unfortunately, no one can just pull an alien body of their fridge and say; "Ha here's your proof!". And even that, the sceptic would just say that you took meat and made it yourself. Most sceptics always critize whatever evidence you have or don't have, they just care about looking like the most reasonable "intelligent" person, thus pump their ego. People looking to pump their ego through internet arguments will always choose the most easily defendable position, the government's of course, they don't care a bit about the truth. Of course, any event you live yourself is pure truth and you know it. But what's the point of living it if you tell it to other people and they automatically tag you as a liar or unreliable source?

If we can't rely on any information, we have to rely on logic. 9/11 by example. The government had the motive, the means, and the opportunity to do it. It was exactly what bush needed to stay in his position. He was then capable of using fear of terrorism to slowly destroy the personal liberty of americans. Thus I will conclude that 9/11 was made by the government. Then you get the sceptics who will ignore the logic as usual be "Give me a tangible proof!". You show them some video proof."It's a hoax". You show them expert testimony "they lied". Proof of not, they don't care. Then as the hypocrites they are they will call themselves defenders of truth, logic, and facts. While in fact all there is to it is ego.

Now if we go beyond making believe others something. As an individual you have the responsability to make the most reflected and logical beliefs as you can. If it means believing 9/11 was a conspiracy, then be it.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:09 PM
link   
you missed the point intrepid. best policy for the forum isn't necessarily best policy for the individual, or the forum participants.

just cos we can doesn't mean we should, but if we are freedom lovers by nature then external policy that restricts is not 'best' for us.

however, a bit of self discipline may well be the 'best' internal policy at times



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
you missed the point intrepid. best policy for the forum isn't necessarily best policy for the individual, or the forum participants.

just cos we can doesn't mean we should, but if we are freedom lovers by nature then external policy that restricts is not 'best' for us.

however, a bit of self discipline may well be the 'best' internal policy at times


Ok. I have no reply because I really don't know what you are saying. Care to clarify?



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
bad analogy but it may help to clarify...

"Hey my friend, what's mine is yours, we are mates" (best policy)
"I slept with your wife" (not necessarily best use of mate's policy, self discipline or silence may have been better personal policy in this case)



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
bad analogy but it may help to clarify...

"Hey my friend, what's mine is yours, we are mates" (best policy)
"I slept with your wife" (not necessarily best use of mate's policy, self discipline or silence may have been better personal policy in this case)


Sorry, even less clear when you balance this off of the original post:


Originally posted by RogerT


Instead of posting, should most of us shut up and read when our egos tempt us to contribute our 'own' opinions, expressed as fact?


Not trying to pee in your pool man, just trying to see where this is going. And at this time I can't.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
ok, too cryptic or too subtle a distinction, sorry.

this particular exchange going nowhere, and now you're confusing me with quoting that part of the original post

any comments on the rest of the post? being a super moderator you must have more views on this than calling me on a point of semantics?



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
any comments on the rest of the post? being a super moderator you must have more views on this than calling me on a point of semantics?


I'm not calling you on anything, just trying to get the point of this thread. Trust me, I think everyone is confused. BTW, I'm only a mod when I need to be, otherwise I'm just a member like everyone else here.



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   
The point of the thread is to discuss the questions raised in the first post.

Who else is confused?



posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Is personal experience the only true source of real knowledge, or are we forced to believe complete strangers with imaginary names if we are to educate ourselves in 'truth'?

Instead of posting, should most of us shut up and read when our egos tempt us to contribute our 'own' opinions, expressed as fact?


To finally get back to the topic.


Ok well have you gone to the moon?Have you looked inside a volcano and saw lava?Have you ever saw a atom?

Although personal expierence would prove the point more to yourself,when you went and told poeple about it it would still be hearsay.......

The problem is not hearsay,the problem is poeple who instantly believe what they here because it is presented well or this or that.If one wants to be truly informed then you must do the research,find the documents,find the evidence of each claim you plan to spread to the poeple.

Word of mouth is awsome,That's why we have poeple questioning 911 and our goverment.But spreading the word without knowing for 100% if it is fact just hurts the cause..

Btw i have had some unpleasent run in with intrepid too.I'll hold his arms you slug away
....Of course im joking,


we can both punch


[edit on 12-8-2007 by Project_Silo]


[edit on 12-8-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Hey Project

Actually that would be personal testimony, not hearsay.


hearsay n. 1) second-hand evidence in which the witness is not telling what he/she knows personally, but what others have said to him/her.


Can't believe I spelt it wrong in the topic title!!


Someone reporting personal experience doesn't necessarily make it more immediately believable, but at least you're talking to the source, so you can ask pointed questions to help clarify whether it's true or not.

'imo' or 'so I heard' is so easy to add to a statement - do we leave it off due to laziness or because we sound more important if people think we are the source?

Cheers.

PS. wouldn't want to pick a fight with someone with metal alloy retractable claws, ,but do appreciate the sentiment



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   
PS. Perhaps a mod could correct the spelling mistake in the topic title, can't find a way to edit it at this end.

Much obliged.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join