Its only real if its on the internet ?
Discussion
As we all know, a lot of threads on various forums descend in to arguments with the usual "I'm holier than though" posters who will often post funny comments in jibe - usually in hope to create that "memorable thread" where it didn't go the way the OP wanted.
But what I've seen occurring more often is the simple statement "have you got a link? , prove me wrong", type of approach.
So is it now considered a "winning post" if there is a link on the internet to "prove a truth", and if no link is available then it must obviously be total falsehood?
Together with the approach, that what is often the case, of being asked to 'prove a negative'? (The usual "prove there isn't a god" line for example).
The problem with the internet that many may not take in to account is that only a fraction of it could be considered "peer reviewed" (to use such a term - having said that we also know that consensus does not prove a fact). So with this in mind, most of the internet could be considered "opinion", even when what looks like a robust link is provided on most subject matters?
What are your views on this?
But what I've seen occurring more often is the simple statement "have you got a link? , prove me wrong", type of approach.
So is it now considered a "winning post" if there is a link on the internet to "prove a truth", and if no link is available then it must obviously be total falsehood?
Together with the approach, that what is often the case, of being asked to 'prove a negative'? (The usual "prove there isn't a god" line for example).
The problem with the internet that many may not take in to account is that only a fraction of it could be considered "peer reviewed" (to use such a term - having said that we also know that consensus does not prove a fact). So with this in mind, most of the internet could be considered "opinion", even when what looks like a robust link is provided on most subject matters?
What are your views on this?
InfiniteVoltage said:
So is it now considered a "winning post" if there is a link on the internet to "prove a truth", and if no link is available then it must obviously be total falsehood?
What are your views on this?
I've given this a lot of thought over the past couple of years and to be honest it scares me a little. Slow-burning of books and re-invented history spring to mind.What are your views on this?
[/tin-foil hat]
InfiniteVoltage said:
As we all know, a lot of threads on various forums descend in to arguments with the usual "I'm holier than though" posters who will often post funny comments in jibe - usually in hope to create that "memorable thread" where it didn't go the way the OP wanted.
But what I've seen occurring more often is the simple statement "have you got a link? , prove me wrong", type of approach.
So is it now considered a "winning post" if there is a link on the internet to "prove a truth", and if no link is available then it must obviously be total falsehood?
Together with the approach, that what is often the case, of being asked to 'prove a negative'? (The usual "prove there isn't a god" line for example).
The problem with the internet that many may not take in to account is that only a fraction of it could be considered "peer reviewed" (to use such a term - having said that we also know that consensus does not prove a fact). So with this in mind, most of the internet could be considered "opinion", even when what looks like a robust link is provided on most subject matters?
What are your views on this?
I think it's mainly down to us living in the 'Wikipedia Age', where everything requires citation.But what I've seen occurring more often is the simple statement "have you got a link? , prove me wrong", type of approach.
So is it now considered a "winning post" if there is a link on the internet to "prove a truth", and if no link is available then it must obviously be total falsehood?
Together with the approach, that what is often the case, of being asked to 'prove a negative'? (The usual "prove there isn't a god" line for example).
The problem with the internet that many may not take in to account is that only a fraction of it could be considered "peer reviewed" (to use such a term - having said that we also know that consensus does not prove a fact). So with this in mind, most of the internet could be considered "opinion", even when what looks like a robust link is provided on most subject matters?
What are your views on this?
The problem with 'it's only true if it's on the internet' is that often there is a much information debunking something that supports it.
Take any popular argument - for example: Aspartame causes brain damage, Vaccines cause autism, Man-made Global Warming - you'll find many sources which appear to legitimately confirm or deny the subject matter, often with studies and 'facts and figures' to assert their claims.
I actually find it harder these days to fall on either side of the fence for many modern arguements, purely due to the wealth of information available the appears to support both sides of the argument.
Orchid1 said:
It's due to the whole rise in Social Media in general. People will always find groups or individuals who think the same way they do and with said "confirmation" of their intellect they believe they are 100% right all the time.
Yeah, f
k those guys.I'm totally with you on this one.
Orchid1 said:
It's due to the whole rise in Social Media in general. People will always find groups or individuals who think the same way they do and with said "confirmation" of their intellect they believe they are 100% right all the time.
Any car owners group, for example.Even if they are wrong.
People love attention. :-)
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff