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.
I think its a really good idea. could cut down on PMs for Mick too if we knew who else we could ask!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..
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"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"
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....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.
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.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
what the hell? you know how many hours I've wasted researching Vulcan Society?! And all this time I could have just asked youSvartbjorn: Expert in Vulcan Sociological Ideologies and Borg Spaceflight Mechanics.
agreed about good intentions. maybe Jasons idea "interested" in topics.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 quickerI 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.
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.Because the site itself has to remain absolutely neutral..
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 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.
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.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.
Isn't more like 100% rather than 95%, from what I've seen on any debunking site...Since 95% of claims do not hold up to scrutiny,
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.Isn't more like 100% rather than 95%, from what I've seen on any debunking site...
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...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.
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.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...
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.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?
this site isn't really about answering questions or considering 'theories', its about examining "specific claims of evidence".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
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.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).