|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 4, 2014 8:42:21 GMT
Thats an impressive amount of research.
And a good example.
Onwards to other research for anyone....
Can I also state that Wikipedia is a good place to start, but if your research ends there, you prove yourself a fool.....
I have proof that Wikipedia is lacking, on many subjects, and on some, just plain wrong.
Autism, in its many flavours, is miss-represented by wikipedia.
Snopes has been proved to have political bias....
And here, on a site dedicated to Myths, failure is always an option, not only do we accept we can be wrong, we can also be delighted by results that prove we can be wrong....
I would say that this site is a good source.
Its work in progress, which will be updated as soon as we have reference, but we can blow our own sail, and launch supersonic ping-pong balls....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 4, 2014 15:04:06 GMT
Thats an impressive amount of research. And a good example. Onwards to other research for anyone.... Can I also state that Wikipedia is a good place to start, but if your research ends there, you prove yourself a fool..... I have proof that Wikipedia is lacking, on many subjects, and on some, just plain wrong. Autism, in its many flavours, is miss-represented by wikipedia. Snopes has been proved to have political bias.... And here, on a site dedicated to Myths, failure is always an option, not only do we accept we can be wrong, we can also be delighted by results that prove we can be wrong.... I would say that this site is a good source. Its work in progress, which will be updated as soon as we have reference, but we can blow our own sail, and launch supersonic ping-pong balls.... I have not seen political bias unless one wants to claim that they only select items which match their bias. I have seen stories favoring (or attacking) both sides of the political spectrum equally busted. - of course, some politically biased individuals claim that is bias. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 4, 2014 17:28:10 GMT
Thats an impressive amount of research. And a good example. Onwards to other research for anyone.... Can I also state that Wikipedia is a good place to start, but if your research ends there, you prove yourself a fool..... I have proof that Wikipedia is lacking, on many subjects, and on some, just plain wrong. Autism, in its many flavours, is miss-represented by wikipedia. Snopes has been proved to have political bias.... And here, on a site dedicated to Myths, failure is always an option, not only do we accept we can be wrong, we can also be delighted by results that prove we can be wrong.... I would say that this site is a good source. Its work in progress, which will be updated as soon as we have reference, but we can blow our own sail, and launch supersonic ping-pong balls.... I have not seen political bias unless one wants to claim that they only select items which match their bias. I have seen stories favoring (or attacking) both sides of the political spectrum equally busted. - of course, some politically biased individuals claim that is bias. Well, if you hate all politicians, slamming any one of them could be considered biased, couldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 5, 2014 8:59:31 GMT
I have not seen political bias unless one wants to claim that they only select items which match their bias. I have seen stories favoring (or attacking) both sides of the political spectrum equally busted. - of course, some politically biased individuals claim that is bias. Well, if you hate all politicians, slamming any one of them could be considered biased, couldn't it? There was a incident a while back where a politician was involved where snopes investigated and found "Something or other", someone else investigated and found that the owners of snopes had political leanings, and then this was busted along with other allegations, but, importantly, Snopes is found to be run by a Husband and Wife. Who have "Limited" investigation abilities... "Eventually". Which someone else noted was easily available by looking at the "About us" section of their own website.... Limited investigation abilities?... As in, no more than I have. So am I trying to say I would be better than them?.. Erm... No... I am no better than anyone else reading this post?... I have experience, but heck, is "Able to google" anything worth writing on a CV?... So the political bias. If you dont like someone, let the rumours run. It has been seen that they bust certain rumours, but let other acidic ones run.... Heck, dont take my word for it, try "Snopes snoped!" as a search title and see what comes up... There is a heck of a lot in favour of Snopes, and even more on taking down the people that attack them.... Why?. Perhaps the jury is still out. Snopes is snopes, its a place to start, but its not the end. And dont trust everything you read on the internet... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 5, 2014 11:47:19 GMT
Snopes and Wilkipedia are useful places to start investigations, if only for providing additional links to other sources.
The biggest problem with investigations, especially with anything historical, is that not everything gets written down and occasionally you run across terms or sayings that might have been put in there by later authors. For example I've run across descriptions of ships being 'blown out of the water' in the age of sail, but the term seems to actually date to the first world war. Likewise people will tend to repeat old myths as facts - such as French ships being 'better' than their British counterparts circa 1800 - either because they are taking first person records at face value* or because it 'sounds right'**
(*In this case British officers tended to officially hype up the quality of French ships in the hope that they would be apprised at a higher selling price. This was a major consideration for them as they got prize money based on the value of the ship and its cargo)
(**Such as 'you only use 10% of your brain', or 'high intelligence goes with social incompetence'.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 5, 2014 15:04:47 GMT
Well, if you hate all politicians, slamming any one of them could be considered biased, couldn't it? There was a incident a while back where a politician was involved where snopes investigated and found "Something or other", someone else investigated and found that the owners of snopes had political leanings, and then this was busted along with other allegations, but, importantly, Snopes is found to be run by a Husband and Wife. Who have "Limited" investigation abilities... "Eventually". Which someone else noted was easily available by looking at the "About us" section of their own website.... Limited investigation abilities?... As in, no more than I have. So am I trying to say I would be better than them?.. Erm... No... I am no better than anyone else reading this post?... I have experience, but heck, is "Able to google" anything worth writing on a CV?... So the political bias. If you dont like someone, let the rumours run. It has been seen that they bust certain rumours, but let other acidic ones run.... Heck, dont take my word for it, try "Snopes snoped!" as a search title and see what comes up... There is a heck of a lot in favour of Snopes, and even more on taking down the people that attack them.... Why?. Perhaps the jury is still out. Snopes is snopes, its a place to start, but its not the end. And dont trust everything you read on the internet... so they are basing the accusation on the allegation that they should have comprehensively investigated everything everyone has said? as I have said - I have seen then take on rumors about both sides of the political spectrum - and give results that were favorable to both sides of the political spectrum. if you want to accuse them of having a political opinion, fine. we all have a political opinion. however, if you want to accuse them of using their website to promote a political agenda, then you have a much bigger burden of proof. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 20, 2015 20:01:43 GMT
New idea. shields-research.org/Critics/djn.htmIn the very early 1980s we had a chap named Dee Jay Nelson who claimed to have a doctoral degree in Egyptology. Nelson was a darling among the counter-cult movement, both for his seemingly impressive resume and his ability to say what the counter-cult movement wanted him to say. Then in 1983, authors Robert and Rosemary Brown decided to check him out. His resume? Nobody had ever heard of him. His doctorate? Diploma mill. In other words, this so-called "expert" was a fraud. Once the Browns published their book, Nelson was finished. Unfortunately, because of how long ago it took place I'm having trouble finding sources above and beyond SHIELDS and FARMS (two LDS apologetics organizations; the Browns were LDS). Might this be a good example to serve as a lead, or should I keep looking? Thanks. edit - found a second source ( www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/DJN.shtml ), but still from an apologetics website |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2015 9:20:11 GMT
Oh Heck, you just hit on something I had a problem with....
And maybe you have seen this problem before.
Person One has a brilliant idea, and pushes for it.
Person two has degrees of education that make them think they are right all the time, they disagree with person one, who they see as "inferior"
Person one has the determination to push through and get their idea out there.
Person two "Discredits" person one to squash the idea fully, on the grounds that as it wasnt their own idea, no one else is allowed to have any idea.
I am keeping the thing simple here(1), but, needless to say, I was person one, and managed to push through an idea that revolutionised data acquisition in my days as a computer programmer, my idea was proved to be useable, but, person two still hates me today because I proved them wrong.
I would therefore ask, do qualifications prove anything.
Especially of the idea is sound.
I am not a scientist by qualification, but, I already got as hall of fame for the supersonic ping-pong ball...in that I was "One of the first" to recognise the idea behind the (Not at that time) viral video was sound?...
I didnt check for qualifications, I just took the face value of what was there and used that.
As we all do on here.
I am using myself as an example of this whole board...
We find good idea and put them up for inspection....
But how many doctorates do we hold between us?...[(2)]
[(1)to put it again simply, at that time, we took on control of a remote monitored control board, but, we had no documentation to the software it was running.
I could download it from my desk and inspect it though...
I had the experience (and qualification) to read through the programming and re-write the documentation from page one...
Person two said my efforts would be futile and that we should start again and completely wipe the existing software and replace it with new, which would involve a site visit. Many miles away.
As it turned out, the existing program was quite capable of doing the job, needed a few tweaks maybe, but there was zero reason for reprogramming...
And indeed was quite educational into how other programmers solved certain tasks.]
[(2)If the person you wish to discredit there as uneducated was proven to be spouting quite complete [small bulls], then go ahead and dig his grave a little deeper?... and I hold no reservations about discrediting complete bullocks.
But, I have no interest in reading through that book.
Many of the real time experts of that time have been proved to have a few errors...
Science gets better, archaeology gets better, and our knowledge base grows on a daily basis.
But this is no reason to discredit the early archaeologists who could only use what they knew at the time?...
As long as, that is, what they knew was "Sound", involved reasonable research, and was accepted by others in the same field.
And I have had personal experience of people who set out to discredit others just because they can, they are spiteful people who hate other having the centre stage.
Not just my own experience, I have seen this happen many times.
And some of it involved News International and the hacking of peoples private mail, phone messages, and getting information by fraudulent means.
Plus a statement "If you dont give us a quote we will just make one up". ]
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 21, 2015 16:26:04 GMT
as for the idea of using something that happened a few decades ago; if you can find documentation, it might be better than something more current, as the time adds more objectivity. I.E. putting forth the claim that Benedict Arnold was a patriot for the other side, rather than a traitor would fly better than putting forth the claim that Snowden was a patriot for the other side.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 21, 2015 20:42:04 GMT
Oh Heck, you just hit on something I had a problem with.... And maybe you have seen this problem before. Person One has a brilliant idea, and pushes for it. Person two has degrees of education that make them think they are right all the time, they disagree with person one, who they see as "inferior" Person one has the determination to push through and get their idea out there. Person two "Discredits" person one to squash the idea fully, on the grounds that as it wasnt their own idea, no one else is allowed to have any idea. I am keeping the thing simple here(1), but, needless to say, I was person one, and managed to push through an idea that revolutionised data acquisition in my days as a computer programmer, my idea was proved to be useable, but, person two still hates me today because I proved them wrong. I would therefore ask, do qualifications prove anything. Especially of the idea is sound. I am not a scientist by qualification, but, I already got as hall of fame for the supersonic ping-pong ball...in that I was "One of the first" to recognise the idea behind the (Not at that time) viral video was sound?... I didnt check for qualifications, I just took the face value of what was there and used that. As we all do on here. I am using myself as an example of this whole board... We find good idea and put them up for inspection.... But how many doctorates do we hold between us?...[(2)] [(1)to put it again simply, at that time, we took on control of a remote monitored control board, but, we had no documentation to the software it was running. I could download it from my desk and inspect it though... I had the experience (and qualification) to read through the programming and re-write the documentation from page one... Person two said my efforts would be futile and that we should start again and completely wipe the existing software and replace it with new, which would involve a site visit. Many miles away. As it turned out, the existing program was quite capable of doing the job, needed a few tweaks maybe, but there was zero reason for reprogramming... And indeed was quite educational into how other programmers solved certain tasks.] [(2)If the person you wish to discredit there as uneducated was proven to be spouting quite complete [small bulls], then go ahead and dig his grave a little deeper?... and I hold no reservations about discrediting complete bullocks. But, I have no interest in reading through that book. Many of the real time experts of that time have been proved to have a few errors... Science gets better, archaeology gets better, and our knowledge base grows on a daily basis. But this is no reason to discredit the early archaeologists who could only use what they knew at the time?... As long as, that is, what they knew was "Sound", involved reasonable research, and was accepted by others in the same field. And I have had personal experience of people who set out to discredit others just because they can, they are spiteful people who hate other having the centre stage. Not just my own experience, I have seen this happen many times. And some of it involved News International and the hacking of peoples private mail, phone messages, and getting information by fraudulent means. Plus a statement "If you dont give us a quote we will just make one up". ] What I'm looking at here is that the guy in question - Nelson - spent 13 years holding himself out to be something that he wasn't. That is, 1. He claimed an extensive resume which included "assisting Egypt's King Farouk in cataloging a number of artifacts" and "doing work for a prime-time television special". (Neither ABC nor the Egyptian government had ever heard of him, and a number of then-leading Egyptologists had never heard of him, either.) 2. He claimed to have a doctorate in the field. (His doctorate came from a school that was shut down for being a diploma mill.) In essence, he was raked over the coals because he lied to the general public about who he was and what skills he actually had. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 21, 2015 20:51:25 GMT
as for the idea of using something that happened a few decades ago; if you can find documentation, it might be better than something more current, as the time adds more objectivity. I.E. putting forth the claim that Benedict Arnold was a patriot for the other side, rather than a traitor would fly better than putting forth the claim that Snowden was a patriot for the other side. I'm looking for an example of someone who was discredited for lying about their qualifications because I want a clear example of someone who simply cannot be trusted as a source. Kids will be reading my column, and I'd rather something cut-and-dried. "X lied about his resume" is far more objective and far more provable than "X lied when he said _____ " since, depending upon what they said, it can be difficult to "prove" a lie. Plus, as someone with an MBA under his belt, I can honestly say that in the world of academia, "lying about one's credentials" is a mortal sin as it immediately casts doubt on your honesty ("If you lied about A, then what's to say that you didn't lie about B?") and your competence to perform your job ("If you don't actually have a degree in medicine, then how can we trust you to actually heal people?"). |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2015 1:40:58 GMT
as for the idea of using something that happened a few decades ago; if you can find documentation, it might be better than something more current, as the time adds more objectivity. I.E. putting forth the claim that Benedict Arnold was a patriot for the other side, rather than a traitor would fly better than putting forth the claim that Snowden was a patriot for the other side. I'm looking for an example of someone who was discredited for lying about their qualifications because I want a clear example of someone who simply cannot be trusted as a source. Kids will be reading my column, and I'd rather something cut-and-dried. "X lied about his resume" is far more objective and far more provable than "X lied when he said _____ " since, depending upon what they said, it can be difficult to "prove" a lie. Plus, as someone with an MBA under his belt, I can honestly say that in the world of academia, "lying about one's credentials" is a mortal sin as it immediately casts doubt on your honesty ("If you lied about A, then what's to say that you didn't lie about B?") and your competence to perform your job ("If you don't actually have a degree in medicine, then how can we trust you to actually heal people?"). see if they grasp the concept. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 22, 2015 2:31:08 GMT
Definite points I'm looking to raise:
1. While Wikis can be informative and a quick way to get basic facts (I myself help edit one), the greatest strength of the Wiki project - being crowd-sourced - is also its biggest weakness since people can easily post bogus information. Hence Wikis being academically unacceptable.
2. Not all "experts" are actual experts, such as with Nelson there.
3. Even if someone is an "expert", they can still make mistakes - or even lie if it suits them - and so it's wise to mate their material with additional sources whenever possible to bolster the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2015 2:56:08 GMT
Definite points I'm looking to raise: 1. While Wikis can be informative and a quick way to get basic facts (I myself help edit one), the greatest strength of the Wiki project - being crowd-sourced - is also its biggest weakness since people can easily post bogus information. Hence Wikis being academically unacceptable. 2. Not all "experts" are actual experts, such as with Nelson there. 3. Even if someone is an "expert", they can still make mistakes - or even lie if it suits them - and so it's wise to mate their material with additional sources whenever possible to bolster the case. you mean like when Sarah Palin slipped up and told reporters Paul revere rode to warn the british that the Americans weren't going to give up their guns - and someone edited Wikipedia to mirror it? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 22, 2015 7:30:52 GMT
Some of us have have spent "[How long]" on here and during that time even I have learnt enough to say we all as a group, somewhat of minor authority compared to non participants on the myths rural and otherwise of the world....(
So did this guy not learn a thing by other publications in all that time?..
Human nature, he must have shown some depth of knowledge, perhaps even fact based, to be that much of an "Expert" in all those years.
Learning, its a process of osmosis, after a while, if you surround yourself with the right material, it seams in through your skin?....
His claim was true, he DID hold that qualification.
He got it through bogus means, but her did hold it.
Absolutely.... I cant disagree.
You realise I am being pedantic on purpose here, to be the devils advocate and perhaps pre-warn you of what others may bring up against your article.
Two wrongs dont make a right, but two Wrights make aeroplanes fly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 22, 2015 16:52:44 GMT
So did this guy not learn a thing by other publications in all that time?.. Human nature, he must have shown some depth of knowledge, perhaps even fact based, to be that much of an "Expert" in all those years. Nope. Not from what I'm seeing. He knew just enough to fake it but not enough to do the job at the level he claimed to be at. It would be like a cab driver claiming that they could handle an F1 racer. They might be a professional driver in at least one sense, but the situation is so completely different that what they don't know can hurt someone. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 22, 2015 17:01:59 GMT
So did this guy not learn a thing by other publications in all that time?.. Human nature, he must have shown some depth of knowledge, perhaps even fact based, to be that much of an "Expert" in all those years. Nope. Not from what I'm seeing. He knew just enough to fake it but not enough to do the job at the level he claimed to be at. It would be like a cab driver claiming that they could handle an F1 racer. They might be a professional driver in at least one sense, but the situation is so completely different that what they don't know can hurt someone. the other question is whether he was even TRYING to do the job right. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 22, 2015 18:26:31 GMT
An entirely too-common issue in the counter-cult movement is that people will claim all sorts of fake credentials for the sake of making themselves seem more impressive. Usually, this is done so that the person can rake in more $$$ for their works and more blindly obedient audiences.
For example, at one point in time one of the more vocal anti-Catholic pundits was Alberto Rivera. He claimed that he fled Spain because the Catholic church was after him for spilling secrets. In reality, he was escaping a fraud charge for a series of "fundraisers" in which the money never arrived at its intended destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 23, 2015 0:19:15 GMT
An entirely too-common issue in the counter-cult movement is that people will claim all sorts of fake credentials for the sake of making themselves seem more impressive. Usually, this is done so that the person can rake in more $$$ for their works and more blindly obedient audiences. For example, at one point in time one of the more vocal anti-Catholic pundits was Alberto Rivera. He claimed that he fled Spain because the Catholic church was after him for spilling secrets. In reality, he was escaping a fraud charge for a series of "fundraisers" in which the money never arrived at its intended destination. so, the secret that got spilled was that he was pocketing the money? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 23, 2015 8:01:30 GMT
Well if he had had to leave the country, perhaps he never had time to hand it over......
Or thats what he said.
|
|
