In Snopes We Trust?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Trail_Goddess:
Printable View
In Snopes We Trust?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Trail_Goddess:
Snopes writers, as those on any fact-checking site should do, tell you where they’re getting their information from and when they don’t know something. They update their articles if new information is available, and if they make a mistake. What more can you ask for? So yes, based on their history I do trust Snopes.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Forbes damning piece about Snopes and alleged fraud https://www.healthnutnews.com/forbes-damning-piece-snopes-exposed-alleged-fraud/
Snopes, the Supposed Arbiter of ‘Fake News’ — Accused of ‘Defrauding Own Site to Pay for Prostitutes’
https://thefreethoughtproject.com/snopes-fake-news-fraud/
Snopes is a disinformtion operation https://awarenessact.com/snopes-a-disinformation-operation/
CEO arrested on charges of fraud and corruption https://drrichswier.com/2015/08/06/snopes-com-ceo-arrested-on-charges-of-fraud-and-corruption/
Snopes busted for spreading Monsanto propaganda to quell safety concern about Round up/glyphosate https://www.sott.net/article/343693-Snopes-busted-for-spreading-Monsanto-propaganda-to-quell-safety-concerns-about-RoundUp-glyphosate
How Snopes works with Monsanto operatives https://foodbabe.com/2017/02/24/do-y....jXf5z4Nm.gbpl
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Trail_Goddess:
Nice list of anti science conspiracy theory sites. No wonder they don't like fact checkers like Snopes!
Here's a list of these and other resources that spread bullshit.
https://www.bullshido.net/list-bs-fa...ed-news-sites/
Your opinion and the opinions of your sources are just that...opinions.
“The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person or a conspiracy theorist – Something that shouldn’t even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan. DOESN’T HAPPEN. You’re a kook and a conspiracy buff.”— George Carlin
In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-who-challenge
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Trail_Goddess:
Everything has bias, even if that bias is a belief that facts exist and that certain things are objective truths that can be known and proven, not just opinions, assertions, agendas, or observations. Snopes has that bias to be sure, as does every evidence based fact checker. And the outlets attacking Snopes as unreliable have a different bias, that facts are what you make of them, that beliefs justify untruths, that scoring points is more important than critical analysis.
There has been a deliberate and tragically effective attempt to undermine fact-checking sources, either by challenging them as corrupt and biased, or by setting up fake fact check sites that are outlets for propaganda. People tend to believe things based on conforming to a shared identity — tribalism — rather than critically examining them. When confronted with a damaging truth not shared by their group they will look to anything, repeating a rumor, a slogan, a logical fallacy, a bald lie, to avoid conflict with their beliefs. This has brought us to our "post truth" world of alternative facts, where you are untitled to not only your own opinions, but to your own facts as well.
World Net Daily, that constant fountain of conspiratorial blather, sums it up nicely here.
Is Snopes.com infallible? They argue that because Snopes confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii, despite the fact that he wasn’t, Snopes must be pursuing a liberal agenda. And thus the WND readers, many not fully realizing that their site is a something of a parody, reject things Snopes will say that challenge their beliefs because WND has passed them a meme that Snopes is untrustworthy.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:
Why would you talk about WND when I had articles from Forbes and 5 other sources? Why the sidetracking? These kinds of conversations are so typical on this forum which is why I rarely comment... same patterns of discounting and marginalizing statements if there is a disagreement, and then go off in another direction away from the topic. Difference of opinion is often lowered to the standard of derogatory expressions or name calling. So boring. What you call evidence-based is yours and 6 corporations opinions. That's where science has gone.
Gov’t attorney’s defend Gov’t programs using gov’t funded science decided by federal bureaucrats trying to keep their gov’t jobs.
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong....The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” ~Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journ...%2960696-1.pdf
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” – Marica Angell, physician and author, along with being the first woman to serve as editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine/
The Scientific Method: then and now
Then: Observe natural phenomena. Formulate a hypothesis. Modify hypothesis. Test hypothesis via rigorous experimentation. Establish theory based upon repeated validation of results. Modify hypothesis.
Now: Generate theory based upon government grants. Carefully craft experiments to "prove" theory is valid. Write algorithms to automatically adjust data to meet government expectations. Publish papers while renaming theory a "hypothesis" and pretend you used the scientific method. Hide data and refuse to honor FOIA request. Pillory real scientists, and claim "the science is settled. Go after the whistleblowers."
And on the original topic, I'm electro-sensitive, no wifi, no microwave, no smartmeters, cellphone off almost all the time, and use a lanline. I can feel the radiation if I'm within a certain range...like my skin and nerves are burning, so when people tell me that these dangerous devices are safe, and don't affect anything, they don't live in my body! Thank you, Sasu, for all your research and care that you share!!
This conversation is complete for me, and baiting won't do a thing.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Trail_Goddess:
I just came across this very detailed, extensive information and email conversations that confirm my position on not trusting Snopes. It might also confirm your position on trusting Snopes.....
WARNING-It's very extensive, showing many "Before and After" Snopes statements.
Do You Trust Snopes? You Won’t After Reading This.