Posted by Wahaha | in AskRamble

I think a lot of misunderstandings people have could be avoided by just tracking down claims to their source. Following sources is kind of like clicking on ads. You get to click around a whole lot eventually landing somewhere completely unrelated or you do get a source that says the exact opposite of the original claim.

But there are more people only reading the headline as opposed to people actually checking the source. And I get it. Who has got the time to check all the sources. But then why believe a headline?



You must log in or register to comment.

burnerben said ()

If I care enough yes. Otherwise ill just disregard the claim.


liminal said ()

It depends on the claim. For example, if it's something that reinforces my beliefs, an information that I'm inclined to believe, that maybe I want to believe in, I have to follow up on the source, if I didn't do this I would end up living in a bubble like anyone who gets his news from Facebook. As you write, sometimes the source actually states the opposite of the claim, something like that happened on this website before.

What gets me mad is when I find out, by researching the topic afterwards, that someone I know IRL has told me some bullshit without showing to have any doubt regarding his statements. While after having a discussion I often look up if I was actually wrong, and if I was I usually let the other party know. Don't see what's the point of debating otherwise.


dontvisitmyintentions said ()

Nobody cares when I substantiate poignant points, so I offer them the same courtesy.


GadgeteerZA said ()

Yep no-one can debate a topic properly without having checked the context of the source, and any other points they want to make. Quite a few myths have been debunked in the last few years too, especially when it comes to nutrition, for example, and yet the previous beliefs were so firmly held for decades.