I'll read the debate. I'm sure it's interesting. I feel like I've read them all. The main thing I like to read are statistical analyses, if you have any that prove you point, I'd prefer it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I'll read the debate. I'm sure it's interesting. I feel like I've read them all. The main thing I like to read are statistical analyses, if you have any that prove you point, I'd prefer it.
The first thing for everyone is to set out who and what sources you believe.
That is absolutely essential in life, by the way. You are going to hear, read, see contradictory stuff being peddled by different sources. Reality can be manipulated.
How to prevent those that are best at manipulating the reality from winning the argument over those who simply say the truth but are not as good at "packaging" and presenting it ?
What are your principles in this respect, what is your recipe for determining whether something that you see, read or hear is close to the truth or is an untruth that has been masterfully twisted as to look like being the actual truth ?
Let's take a different topic that is still controversial in some circles in the US: creationism versus evolution. There are very good presenters on both sides who, when in front of a "virgin mind", could turn it their way. People who are extremly convincing when arguing for creationism (or intelligent design, or whatever other theory). And people who are very convincing when arguing in favour of evolution.
But when the theories are contradictory, then only one of these guys can be right and the other are either deluded or manipulative (or both) ...
So in this case, what is your mental path for separating the truth from the untruth?
That's the very first step. Because otherwise whatever statistics I can come up with you can always reply "oh yeah but those guys are ideologists" or "have a vested interest" or "are incompetent" or ... whatever, and dismiss the statistical analyses.