The bliss of ignorance

[boyfriday]

Anyone claiming the earth is flat would however be making it fairly obvious they have never left Lincolnshire to visit Sheffield though.

 

..unless they made the journey blindfold, in a helicopter

[eastbank]

..it'll be a better view standing upright, by Xmas easty

 

 

never really been interested in tables....since infant school.....off on a bender this saturday...

fun and games in aid of the matthew cryer memorial trust....i'm down for the apple bobbing in a barrel of magners.....:hihi:

[danot]

The supporting and/or conflicting evidence would surely have to materialise from somewhere..and If you hadn't witnessed it it directly why do we come to the conclusion it's true?

I assumed your question applied to how I assess what is true on the forum also. That's why I provided you with two examples.

 

Posted by Alien

Then I read your following and picked up your use of the word "wrong".

 

 

 

...or "right" as the case may be. Even if we don't experience something that is being debated as true we can still feel it's true based on past experiences that have felt "right or wrong" depending on your perception of right and wrong that is.

Of course, which is the case more often than not, we couldn't be expected to form our opinion on events we had no involvement in in any other way.

 

Posted by Alien

A person may state that a whole society are savages based on the action of one of it's society as true...I wouldn't argue that that is untrue..I'm more inclined to argue it's wrong based on my own knowledge of societies in general.

Something can feel right or wrong..that's more to do with human psychi than the fact of true/false.

Absolutely, people are free to voice their opinion, but that's all it is... an opinion.

[Alien]

I assumed your question applied to how I assess what is true on the forum also. That's why I provided you with two examples.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by danot

I would look at the supporting and conflicting evidence to assess whether something was true. Although that wouldn't apply if I claimed to know it was true, as I would have witnessed it.

 

And this supporting/conflicting evidence comes from where? Libraries? google? News media? All in your head?

 

It seems for some (this isn't directed at you) that Google/Wiki is used as a form of insult "Don't you have a brain to think for yourself" when in all reality the person using either is actually questioning themselves through another platform and the reason they continue is because that platform may or may not justify/verify their initial thinking.

 

Another point with Google/Wiki etc is that they are readily available at the touch of keyboard . Who's going to say..."hold on a min while I pop down to the library"?

[danot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by danot

I would look at the supporting and conflicting evidence to assess whether something was true. Although that wouldn't apply if I claimed to know it was true, as I would have witnessed it.

 

And this supporting/conflicting evidence comes from where? Libraries? google? News media? All in your head?

 

It seems for some (this isn't directed at you) that Google/Wiki is used as a form of insult "Don't you have a brain to think for yourself" when in all reality the person using either is actually questioning themselves through another platform and the reason they continue is because that platform may or may not justify/verify their initial thinking.

 

Another point with Google/Wiki etc is that they are readily available at the touch of keyboard . Who's going to say..."hold on a min while I pop down to the library"?

There's nothing wrong in using Google/wiki to corroborate a statement. But some posters go beyond using it to corroborate statements, they use it to demonstrate that their argument is right.

[Alien]

There's nothing wrong in using Google/wiki to corroborate a statement. But some posters go beyond using it to corroborate statements, they use it to demonstrate that their argument is right.

 

 

Well their not going to use it to counter their argument:D Bit daft that would be..innit?

[danot]

Well their not going to use it to counter their argument:D Bit daft that would be..innit?

Yes it would be daft.. really daft.. just as daft as claiming they are right because wiki says so.

[Wildcat]

Yes it would be daft.. really daft.. just as daft as claiming they are right because wiki says so.

 

So long as they re-assess their claim when a contradicting source is supplied, your complaint seems trivial. Yes, overstatenents should be criticised but at least if they are referenced it is easier to spot or understand why.

[Alien]

Yes it would be daft.. really daft.. just as daft as claiming they are right because wiki says so.

 

 

Despite the initial argument I have never once encountered on here someone claiming their argument/statement was right/true because of the connection with Wiki or Google. I am prepared to be corrected on that though. And if as has been suggested, it would be very easy to correct me considering the 'over use' of Wiki as a truth/proof tool.

[danot]

So long as they re-assess their claim when a contradicting source is supplied, your complaint seems trivial. Yes, overstatenents should be criticised but at least if they are referenced it is easier to spot or understand why.

I'm criticising the 'matter of fact' fashion in which certain posters present pages from wikipedia into a debate believing that this somehow confirms that their argument is right, thereby making the opposing argument wrong. I'm not criticising the use of wikipedia.. I don't believe anyone is.