Originally posted by MRuss
reply to post by THEDUDE86
I don't know. Here--and everywhere---someone is always being debunked and discredited. If you believed everything you heard, you wouldn't even
like or believe in God---not to mention Steven Greer, a handful of astronauts, David Wilcock or anyone else for that matter.
Agreed, MRuss. I actually looked up that debunking article, which was a little involved because the domain has died. I'm now wishing I hadn't
bothered. I was initially going to write a refutation, but the article was extremely long and so ridiculous that I decided not to waste my time.
Claims that the Bilderberg Group is powerless because it doesn't have the ability to directly set policy in any country, etc etc. Insane.
Experience has taught me to make two assumptions about anybody who claims to be "debunking," anything.
a] They're almost certain to be a Hollywood Atheist
, and thus exceptionally
annoying in general terms. Although I don't consider all Atheists annoying, by any means, Hollywood Atheists (which I also call
, as they also infest that site) are among the most vexatious and
infuriating groups of people on the planet.
b] They mistake pedantry for logic, and also engage in numerous other logical fallacies. The appeal to authority tends to be a particular favourite;
the common or garden variety pseudo-skeptic will often dismiss someone out of hand, on the basis of whether or not they have credentials.
The other form which the appeal to authority usually takes, is the idea that science in particular is a closed, centralised priesthood; that the word
of the "mainstream scientific community," is infallible and completely unassailable, and that anyone who might remotely consider having a different
opinion, is automatically wrong by default. This particular troll has proven particularly effective against alternative energy generation.
I guess what you have to do is allow people to figure out which leaders/speakers and information resonates with them.
I can offer you a few suggestions when it comes to fact checking, at least in terms of what I use.
a] Credentials rarely matter to me at all. The validity of a statement does not necessarily have any relationship with the identity of its' author.
Never dismiss any idea on the basis of the author's (lack of) credentials. This is particularly true if the individual is speaking outside of the
"mainstream scientific community." You will overwhelmingly find, that those scientists who have historically made the largest contributions to
progress, were not accepted by said mainstream scientific community in their own time.
Alex Jones very likely is genuinely mentally ill, as I have said. However, even with that being the case, he has proven that anyone who is willing to
dismiss him as a source of information, is likely to do themselves a serious disservice.
Another form this issue can take, is when a particular source of information seems to have moral problems or character defects. This can mean that
the information they convey is less reliable; but usually all it means is that they have an agenda in a specific area which I don't consider relevant
anyway. Peter Joseph, the producer of the Zeitgeist movies, is a good example of this. Joseph was a highly arrogant, condescending anti-theist, who
showed indications of wanting to join the cabal, even as he exposed them. Nevertheless, his films contain some of the best treatments we have, of a
few of their subjects.
b] Look for corroboration and synchronicity. If a given piece of information has only a single source, that is a bad sign. It doesn't necessarily
mean that it isn't true, but it does mean that I don't have anything else to verify it against, so I can't immediately consider it reliable.
You ideally want things which appear over and over again, in disparate sources. Generally speaking, the less relation between two different sources
of the same information, the better.
c] Look for information which can be used to create reliable chains of inference.
If A and B are reliable, then they can safely be added together to produce C; although ideally, you also want an independent means of verifying C's
reliability, as well. Not only does David Icke's information (as one example) about banking appear in a lot of different sources, the more important
characteristic of it, is that it can be used to form elegant explanations for banking crises, etc, which can then in turn be reliably used to explain
other, related things.