User Banner for Verified Expertise? [No]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
LOL.. You're fine Jason, I was just pickin on ya. You're one of the ppl Id categorize as being a joe like me. Curious, intelligent, skeptical, but open minded.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I was thinking, and I know that could be dangerous at time, lol. But what if there was a directory on this forum which listed participants with their field of study or expertise. So that if someone on here wishes to PM somebody about biology, or viruses, or HAARP, or Cosmology, etc,etc,etc... They will have a list at their disposal. It might be helpful for newer members, or for those on the sidelines who don't feel comfortable using a forum format. So if I had a question about physics, and it didn't fit posting guidelines, who would I ask in a PM, or about vaccines. I thought it might be very helpful, and if the member determines it's a good enough topic for discussion, they could possibly help the person with thier first OP... Does this make sense to anyone..
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I was thinking, and I know that could be dangerous at time, lol. But what if there was a directory on this forum which listed participants with their field of study or expertise. So that if someone on here wishes to PM somebody about biology, or viruses, or HAARP, or Cosmology, etc,etc,etc... They will have a list at their disposal. It might be helpful for newer members, or for those on the sidelines who don't feel comfortable using a forum format. So if I had a question about physics, and it didn't fit posting guidelines, who would I ask in a PM, or about vaccines. I thought it might be very helpful, and if the member determines it's a good enough topic for discussion, they could possibly help the person with thier first OP... Does this make sense to anyone..
I think its a really good idea. could cut down on PMs for Mick too if we knew who else we could ask!
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Youd kinda run into the same situation you have with the banners I think Jason. Its not a bad idea, but it sets you up for accusations of shilling and elitism as well as appeals to authority. Most of the time, we talk about our experience and credentials in the posts.. Cobra has said several times that he's a pilot, as has WeedWacker and probably 5 or 6 others that I cant think of off the top of my head. Mick's also pointed out that he's a programmer (or was) and has a broad variety of experience and expertise in several areas, including experimentation. Would probably just be better to let those that have same, speak for themselves when the time calls for it.

Think of it this way.. how do we verify ppl are what they present themselves to be? It puts the site in a position of having to do background checks on everyone who claims to be XYZ as well.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Youd kinda run into the same situation you have with the banners I think Jason. Its not a bad idea, but it sets you up for accusations of shilling and elitism as well as appeals to authority. Most of the time, we talk about our experience and credentials in the posts.. Cobra has said several times that he's a pilot, as has WeedWacker and probably 5 or 6 others that I cant think of off the top of my head. Mick's also pointed out that he's a programmer (or was) and has a broad variety of experience and expertise in several areas, including experimentation. Would probably just be better to let those that have same, speak for themselves when the time calls for it.

Think of it this way.. how do we verify ppl are what they present themselves to be? It puts the site in a position of having to do background checks on everyone who claims to be XYZ as well.
well if they are 'appealing to authority' in posts what difference does it make if its in a directory? more like a "people willing to answer PM questions" kind a thing. with a disclaimer that says "profiles are written by member and have not been verified by NSA"
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Agreed. I think a poster should refer to evidence at all times. Even if you're an expert in your field you should be able to point to supporting evidence.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
well if they are 'appealing to authority' in posts what difference does it make if its in a directory? more like a "people willing to answer PM questions" kind a thing. with a disclaimer that says "profiles are written by member and have not been verified by NSA"
Because the site itself has to remain absolutely neutral.. if individuals want to post their credentials then thats completely up to them. If the site posts their credentials, then the site itself supports them by default. If I understand the mission of Metabunk (as a site) its sole existence is to be a place where you can come to find information in an unbiased and unfettered fashion. I dont think that a listing of people and their credentials will fit in with that mission statement. The onus needs to be on the poster for backing up their claims. I get what you guys are saying, and like I said.. its not a BAD idea, but given the amount of crap we get as is just by being ourselves, we dont need to feed that paranoia or fear by saying:

Svartbjorn: Expert in Vulcan Sociological Ideologies and Borg Spaceflight Mechanics.

As Mick pointed out earlier.. where do we stop? Every person that walks through the door that claims to be an expert in this or that will have to be researched or we run the risk of letting individuals with no real credentials walk in.. and you end up with a Fruit of the Forbidden Tree issue.. everything on the site then comes into question because ONE person slipped through the cracks. It totally defeats the purpose of Metabunk as a whole. If, on the other hand, Svartbjorn claims to have the expertise and credentials listed above and he does it in his OWN post, then he alone bears the responsibilty.. and if he's outed for falsifying himself, then thats on him as well. Not all of us as a whole. That make more sense?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I think some sort of "I think I've got some knowledge in [some field] & am happy to answer questions as best I can" register is not a bad idea.

but even then that is just something that might help direct people to those who might have a better-than-normal-chance of being able to provide actual evidence - and not just use their "authority" as evidence.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Youd kinda run into the same situation you have with the banners I think Jason. Its not a bad idea, but it sets you up for accusations of shilling and elitism as well as appeals to authority. Most of the time, we talk about our experience and credentials in the posts.. Cobra has said several times that he's a pilot, as has WeedWacker and probably 5 or 6 others that I cant think of off the top of my head. Mick's also pointed out that he's a programmer (or was) and has a broad variety of experience and expertise in several areas, including experimentation. Would probably just be better to let those that have same, speak for themselves when the time calls for it.

Think of it this way.. how do we verify ppl are what they present themselves to be? It puts the site in a position of having to do background checks on everyone who claims to be XYZ as well.
Yes and No. This would be a directory which would give minor info about those members who wish to be on in the directory. With a directory, it allows shy people a place to go or gives members an idea of who likes to discuss HAARP or Chemtrails. Maybe you wouldn't have to list their credentials, just make a note that this topic is their forte or interest, perhaps....
 

Jason

Senior Member
Because the site itself has to remain absolutely neutral.. if individuals want to post their credentials then thats completely up to them. If the site posts their credentials, then the site itself supports them by default. If I understand the mission of Metabunk (as a site) its sole existence is to be a place where you can come to find information in an unbiased and unfettered fashion. I dont think that a listing of people and their credentials will fit in with that mission statement
I agree, but this would be more of a directory that would help people find their way. Who to go to if they have questions about this, you don't have to list their credentials, just people who like to answer PM's, and who actually care about helping people.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
Svartbjorn: Expert in Vulcan Sociological Ideologies and Borg Spaceflight Mechanics.
what the hell? you know how many hours I've wasted researching Vulcan Society?! And all this time I could have just asked you :mad:

but seriously, I was thinking more along the lines of what Mike said. like if I have a computer question or a 'space' question or a 'plane' question or a question about my car making a funny noise... Now I kinda know a few people I can ask but I don't know if they are open to being bothered.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
I thought thats what our profiles were for.. again Im not trying to be obtuse lol I promise. I can just see good intentions blowing up in a very negative and unintended way.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I thought thats what our profiles were for.. again Im not trying to be obtuse lol I promise. I can just see good intentions blowing up in a very negative and unintended way.
agreed about good intentions. maybe Jasons idea "interested" in topics.
 

Jason

Senior Member
I thought thats what our profiles were for.. again Im not trying to be obtuse lol I promise. I can just see good intentions blowing up in a very negative and unintended way.
You're not being obtuse, but have you looked at the profiles on this site. No one really puts anything in their profile besides where they live (maybe) and if they are male or female.... Maybe have people indicate in their profile that they are willing to help in certain fields via PM. But then again a directory would just be playing off of that, and enable new members to find what they are looking for quicker
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Just have to see what happens I guess.. Im a computer guy, I love centralized databases etc.. its a nice neat way to organize things for quick access (if its done right).. Im not just 100% sure itd work the way you guys are thinking it will. I totally agree thatd it be nice to have that information at our fingertips.. and I agree witht he bit about the profiles, but... (and correct me if Im wrong here @Mick West ) but if we put said information thats being talked about, into our profiles.. then the search system SHOULD help direct you.. Maybe have #tags for helpers etc.. but like I said, Im not sure because Im not familiar with the forum's software so I dont know what its limitations are.. but if you can find a way to give you what you guys need/want while keeping the website itself completely separated from same, then it might work the way you're thinking it will.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm just on my iPad right now so it's hard to delve into the system, but I don't think that the search system searches profiles.

But I think generally people just post an open question to the board as whole, and are not really coming here looking for particularly qualified individuals. They can always just view the profile of the people who respond.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Because the site itself has to remain absolutely neutral..
But how is a "debunking" site supposed to remain neutral? It's a debunking site, so by that premise there is no nuetrality. Does a false image of neutrality help more? I know members of the site believe its a neutral site, but proponents of CT's would probably argue against that point. It's like a CT site being worried about being neutral and not wanting to list their credentials. I honestly think the point of neutrality sailed a long time ago, but I could be wrong. Do you honestly believe people come here because the site is neutral, or because there are "intelligent" people here that know their sh*t. I prefer to believe the ladder.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
But how is a "debunking" site supposed to remain neutral? It's a debunking site, so by that premise there is no nuetrality. Does a false image of neutrality help more? I know members of the site believe its a neutral site, but proponents of CT's would probably argue against that point.
because this isn't an anti-conspiracy theory site. it's a debunking site. it's not the site's fault there just happens to be a lot of bunk associated with conspiracy theories.

But they debunk a lot of things that have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. <because it's an anti-bunk site
 
But how is a "debunking" site supposed to remain neutral? It's a debunking site, so by that premise there is no nuetrality. Does a false image of neutrality help more? I know members of the site believe its a neutral site, but proponents of CT's would probably argue against that point. It's like a CT site being worried about being neutral and not wanting to list their credentials. I honestly think the point of neutrality sailed a long time ago, but I could be wrong. Do you honestly believe people come here because the site is neutral, or because there are "intelligent" people here that know their sh*t. I prefer to believe the ladder.
Well the true nature of the scientific process is not to prove one side or another, but to evaluate all the evidence and then reach a conclusion. I've seen Mick state that the point of this site is not to prove conspiracy theory wrong per se, but to evaluate different claims of evidence that are said to be proof that something is going on and seeing if those claims hold up to scrutiny. They often don't hold up to scrutiny, but I'm sure if convincing evidence came up with regards to any conspiracy theory, I would hope many of us would consider the evidence and alter our hypotheses in response. That's just the true scientific way. Since 95% of claims do not hold up to scrutiny, there is no reason to believe in chemtrails or NWO, but that doesn't make this an anti-conspiracy site. Members certainly have their personal biases and can communicate in a way that sounds anti-conspiracy (if only for the poor track record CTs have with regards to evidence) but that doesn't change what debunking should be about, and the attitude with which it should be carried out.
 
Isn't more like 100% rather than 95%, from what I've seen on any debunking site...
It probably is, but I just kinda made up that number. I haven't read through everything on this site, so maybe there are some things that haven't been properly debunked, but basically everything I've seen here has been convincingly debunked, imo.
 

Jason

Senior Member
It probably is, but I just kinda made up that number. I haven't read through everything on this site, so maybe there are some things that haven't been properly debunked, but basically everything I've seen here has been convincingly debunked, imo.
So thats why I asked the question about neutrality. How can a site be neutral if every topic gets debunked? It's not biased "on purpose" it just happens to be that way because of where the evidence falls...
 
So thats why I asked the question about neutrality. How can a site be neutral if every topic gets debunked? It's not biased "on purpose" it just happens to be that way because of where the evidence falls...
Well the site is still neutral, it's just that every claim has been debunked (to my knowledge). Every claim being debunked is not evidence that the site is anti-conspiracy, just that every piece of evidence that has come up so far does not hold up to scrutiny, which should say something about the CT in question. Like I said, I'm sure if there was convincing evidence that supports the idea something sinister is going on, I believe it would be considered if other plausible explanations were ruled out.

That's just the way things have turned out based on the evidence. What would your idea of neutral be, Jason?
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Well the site is still neutral, it's just that every claim has been debunked (to my knowledge). Every claim being debunked is not evidence that the site is anti-conspiracy, just that every piece of evidence that has come up so far does not hold up to scrutiny, which should say something about the CT in question. Like I said, I'm sure if there was convincing evidence that supports the idea something sinister is going on, I believe it would be considered if other plausible explanations were ruled out.

That's just the way things have turned out based on the evidence. What would your idea of neutral be, Jason?
Honestly TV, I don't know and maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here with the use of the word neutral, and veering off topic. Neutral too me, would show no bias whether intentional or unintentional. If the sites "intentions" are to debunk the bunk using the scientific method, then the experitice of those reviewing the evidence should come into play. Expertise varies in degree from a learned scholar, to experience in the field. IMO experience is just as important as if not more in some instances than a PhD (or equivalent). And this should carry some distinction and wieght in the responses and opinions from participants. But I see your point, in that the site goes about it's business in a neutral way (scientific method) for the most part. It's a shame, though, when a question or "theory" is met with regurgitated responses, instead of reviewing the evidence and determining if it stands up to scrutiny.
 

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
It's a shame, though, when a question or "theory" is met with regurgitated responses, instead of reviewing the evidence and determining if it stands up to scrutiny
this site isn't really about answering questions or considering 'theories', its about examining "specific claims of evidence".

Many times people post and there is no specific claim of evidence. so there really is nothing to scrutinize.

And remember this is an open discussion forum. Any one can join. Just because some member may post "I know those aren't chemtrails because there are no such things as chemtrails" doesn't mean that is reflective of the site itself.

The reverse is true for conspiracy theories as well. Some 'believers' that latch onto a theory are actually more damaging to the theory than debunkers are, because they DO literally make up 'evidence' or doctor photographs etc. No 'group' can control all the members in public forums. Not CT sites or debunking sites.
 

Svartbjørn

Senior Member
Think of it this way. The site is dedicated to specific claims. If the evidence supports the claim, then cool.. awesome, we all learned something. If the evidence does NOT support the claim, then bunk around said claim (or the claim itself) is being cleared up. The reason the vast majority of the claims you see here are "debunked" is because MOST of the time, the bunk you see is based on very broad and poor understanding of very complicated and specific systems. Its like saying that Moon just orbits the Earth.. it does, but its a LOT more complicated than a chunk of rock going around in circles around another chunk of rock.. the basic idea is easy to explain but the specifics can be incredibly difficult if you're not well versed in differential calculus and astrophysics.

This is why, as was pointed out earlier, Mick doesnt like addressing massive subjects like 9/11 as a whole. There are too many moving parts. Specifics within 9/11 though, like controlled demo being what brought the towers down, is a lot easier to tackle because you're talking about one specific event within a system. is there evidence to support controlled demo on XYZ.. yes? what is it? No? why not?

The site isnt choosing a side, its saying.. look.. here's all the evidence thats been presented to say that Controlled Demolition took place on 9/11(just as an example).. here's the counter evidence that shows that it is/is not the case. Thats why Mick and the other Admins keep pulling things back on topic and why we've got the rules we have in place to keep personal opinion out of the subject as much as possible.

To quote Dragnet:



Does it always work... no, we're all human, we let our emotions get involved now and then.. but as a whole we all do our best to be as unbiased and scientific as possible. Its not always seen that way, a lot of times people see it as being talked down to or preached at, when its poor choice of wording or throwing a lot of Maths at people when the vast majority of the world doesnt speak that language fluently. Does that make more sense @Jason?
 
Honestly TV, I don't know and maybe I'm being a bit pedantic here with the use of the word neutral, and veering off topic. Neutral too me, would show no bias whether intentional or unintentional. If the sites "intentions" are to debunk the bunk using the scientific method, then the experitice of those reviewing the evidence should come into play. Expertise varies in degree from a learned scholar, to experience in the field. IMO experience is just as important as if not more in some instances than a PhD (or equivalent).
I see what you're saying Jason, but I don't know if expertise necessarily NEEDS to be a part of the process. With the advent of the internet, a lot of knowledge on almost every subject is available in great depth to those that would like to pursue it. Mick isn't a meteorologist by profession, but he clearly knows a lot about contrails, clouds, and climate to sufficiently explain why persistent contrails occur in great depth. That's just one example.

People are against having their credentials prominently displayed because it can derail arguments when people use their credentials to say they're right without providing evidence. If a biologist makes a claim about vitamin b-17 being a necessary nutrient, and they don't provide evidence, but says you should trust them simply because of their biologist credentials, that's when bringing those titles into the equation is a hindrance more than a help. Or if someone comes here to read debunkings and sees that a non-pilot is debunking claims about chemtrails, and thinks "Well what does that person know? They're not a pilot or *insert whatever qualification here*". Not having credentials displayed puts more focus on providing evidence for claims, which is super important for debunking.

While credentials are a good thing to consider in general when someone is giving information, having credentials doesn't mean one is free from making erroneous claims, which is why appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I'd say this site is the closest thing to neutral you could ask for. The politeness policy tries to ensure that no one is berated for their views, and every person that makes a claim is given a chance to explain themselves. I think @Svartbjørn hit the nail on the head
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There was a thread about how a weatherman was talking about the military spraying chaff. That was not debunked.

Things get brought up all the time that are not bunk. But obviously the focus of the site is looking for errors in evidence - so naturally a lot of the things we look at are bunk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top