Thanks to u/v8power for the excellent suggestion!
It's a tricky topic!
This is 1 of 2 round tables this time, due to a tie.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or voted!
Comments (38)
sorted by:
Just like in science.
Top accuracy: A source of information contains absolutely everything you need to check information by yourself and you already checked this information and get same result.
Medium accuracy: A source of information contains absolutely everything you need to check information by yourself and few completely independent and unlinked researchers already check it and get same results.
Low accuracy: A source of information contains absolutely everything you need to check information by yourself.
All other cases: There are no information at all. It is propaganda or marketing.
If you decided to pay attention, both, propaganda and marketing obviously imply your own research to obtain information and everything you need to check it. This information could have nothing in common with the thing you paid attention to. It is not about true or false, it is about information. F.e. from some MSM propaganda article about climate change you hardly could get any information about climate change, but you could get information about connection between celebrity and some shady fund, or about new surveillance system to control you.
Honestly, when the fake news reports on something it helps confirm the opposite is real.
In a lot of cases they do report the truth in a way to shape/control the narrative when it's coming out anyways. In this case, it's probably way more than 2,000... but soften up people a little bit so that when the news comes out that it's 20,000, people have already lost interest.
This.
Isn’t that literally Dunning Kruger? Believing things because they agree with things you already believe? Following ‘instinct and intuition’ is a terrible way to determine veracity, as everyone instinctively wants to believe things that agree with them, and wants to not believe things that disagree with them.
You really can’t prove something to be true but you can prove it to be false via contradictions. Any sandcastle built on falsehoods should rapidly erode. It’s indicative they peer reviewed sources and even critical thinking itself is not being censored or labeled “raaaaycst”. Such emotional arguments and other similar fallacies indicate deceit.
You can’t be reasonably sure. But what you can know is that if information is being promoted, that information means something to somebody. I
But is this information symbolic? Is it to be taken at face value? Is it false? Is it true? Can you unlock its meaning?
Example. Tom Brady goes to White House… tells Biden 40% of people don’t think they won but they did!
Why is he there? Who does Tom represent? Why report on this specific quote? Why does this get coverage? Why is this news to the public?
This is information. It is being promoted. But what does it mean? Did it even happen? How can I know? Some news article said. Maybe someone was there to verify that quote was said. But I don’t know who picked that quote to be put in the article or why a news story was created around it. But someone does. Someone can interpret that info. And it means something to them and it means next to nothing to everybody else.
And if scientific studies are funded by government, by big businesses, can we trust “science”? We try to verify the sources the “information” presents. What if it’s a perfectly sound logical argument built on a false premise or base? It will check out unless you question the premise. And if you can’t question it you might believe something entirely false.
Honestly if you want to push a false narrative, you probably would want to make sure it reasonably checks out. Poorly crafted studies are made and science papers are written and pushed. But really, did you verify the study was done? Were you there? Did you call to confirm finding with any of the authors? Aside from that, did you scour the study to make sure it was sent up in an unbiased manner? Are you able to access the raw data that they used to draft up their charts and tables or are you just trusting them to present it fairly?
But evil and deception out there can’t possibly control everyone so some truth must come through. You can’t discredit and discount everything. But you do need to know who is sending the info? Who is funding it? Who is meant to receive the info? Is there a possible double meaning?
It’s a big club and you ain’t in it. You don’t speak the language. Information is being sent and it looks absolutely ridiculous and stupid to most people but if you speak the language you understand.
If you want to trust a source you have to know the source and be familiar with the topic enough to decide for yourself. And then not be married to that outcome if more information comes along to add to your understanding.
Really like this part:
The meta-focus on intent of author and publisher.
Sometimes, I don't trust things I tell myself, about myself. Lol. I'm my own source, that presumably I know very well, and we're talking about something near and dear to both of us, us! Me! Example: I probably think I'm a better person than I really "am". Or maybe worse? That an event happened a certain way, years, minutes or seconds ago.
Especially when thinking of intent, this seems to happen more often.
Whether a door slammed in another room, or was it a book dropping?
The closer we get to a physical event the more probable, it seems to me, that I can trust my eyes, ears, etc. Memory is another matter! Esp as I age! Ha ha!
There's an author, Robert Anton Wilson, have you heard of him? Housewife, lemme tell ya, he goes off on this topic! "Quantum Psychology", especially, delves into e-prime, quantum theory, shhht, I don't even remember all the topics. Mr. Wilson has a very non-traditional way of approaching the subject, lets say. I'll be generous and say that it seems very relaxed and informal ...while still getting into the nuts and bolts of epistemology.
Excerpt about e-prime: http://rawilson.com/quantum-psychology/
An intersection of semantics, physics and epistemology. With practical applications thrown in. And Bob's ....unique approach.
Love it and have been a fan for about 20 years. Lol.
The stakes are so high that just about anything can be compromised. If something can't be compromised, they marginalize it. If that's not enough, and it's really important, they assassinate.
What is the difference between compromised and margenalized? Or, can you give me examples for those two? I'm not sure I understand.
By compromised I mean something that has been manipulated to subvert it. The Washington Post has been compromised by the Deep State.
By marginalized I mean something that has had its ability to reach an audience sobotaged. Wikileaks has been marginalized.
John Lennon (maybe).
E-prime helps me through a lot of mess. The fallacy of "is-ness"! How claiming something* is* presupposes the thing to be stable and unchanging and only one thing, unconnected and that your view of it "is" absolute and unaffected by your own nervous system. Anyways...this is all sort of off-topic as I think others have answered better than I have. At least, they seem like good sources of information from the upvote count, that's important right? Ha ha, just kidding there! Just kiddin.
But yeah, this sub should absolutely adore Robert Anton Wilson! You do,ndont you? His specialty was 'conspiracy' from a philosophic angle. I'm still studying him but please do yourself a favor and read Cosmic Trigger triology or or Quantum Psychology or even just his Wikipedia entry!
That out of the way, yes, as others have said, who, what, where, when...with very little why! Is usually the opposite way around. Whole news articles concerned with why someone did this thing on this day over there.
From there, as others have mentioned, verification by independent parties. Etc.
Thing is, as ol R.A.W. points out, the entire thing could be an elaborate conspiracy!
Tel;Dr...I could be in a coma dreaming all this. It seems likevtreating things as probabilities vs possibilities gets me closer to the truth. Anything is possible, not all things probable. Though, many improbable conspiracies get away from public notice exactly by being, or seeming, heh heh, improbable!
When you search the thesis and antithesis in both google, duckduckgo and searx (etc) you can quantify both the number of different sources defending each thesis and my using different search engines you can measure the censorship by the change in percentages (and the order) between engines.
Old and I was not visiting this win too many times but:
u/clemaneuverers : you cannot be 100% certain source is legitimate. You can only find at some moment proofs it is not legitimate.
And high probability of source legitimacy requires many factors confirming its legitimacy depending on type of information for example.
If the info is coming from: Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, MSN, AP Yahoo, WSJ, Forbes....
I wait two weeks for the old info to be called a "conspiracy theory".
Energy represents the source of ALL information, and we cannot add to it; for we are within it; out of it. We cannot create; only transmute out of ALL that already is; which we use to reshape form within flow.
That being said...this system communicates inspiration to our senses aka we perceive movement that inspires us to adapt as form to flow. That inspiration is what we "need" to adapt to; yet what we "want" is information aka others suggesting us what ALL the inspiration means. The latter represents a temptation to us; that tricks us to ignore to adapt to inspiration, in exchange for believing suggested information.
How can others suggested information? By offering "words" as definitions; in ignorance of a moving system; a system that doesn't use words to communicate with us; it doesn't brand itself; it moves us.
The source of ALL information represents moving energy; accurate and inaccurate represents believing the suggested information of others who proclaim it to be accurate or inaccurate. To believe one side automatically causes conflict with the others side aka true versus false...this they call reason.
Don't believe suggested information; adapt to inspiration. Don't reason (true vs false); use implication (if/then) instead; and underneath all choose need over want and learn that all suggestions represent the want of others for you to believe them. Resist the wants of others; and adhere to the needs we all share for the sustenance of self.
The trick is in deciding whom will present to you the said information (you haven't done the work to verify scientifically) in a way which you "feel" is correct.
A good example is that I don't have time to prove the earth is flat, or vice versa. HOWEVER, the space faring company that is in charge of our dreams of star trek, and gives you all these big blue marble pictures, is starting to show a little weakness. You can't physically pass the Van Allen Belts. Bubbles in space. We never went to the moon. You can't fly over the north pole. Everything NASA says starts to sound like bullshit. Now the physical form of the earth itself is called into question. Is it flat? Is it round? I don't know now at least from what NASA says because I can't trust the source. (dude I WORSHIPED NASA).
On a conspiracy forum, we are learning see multiple layers to what is being presented. (e.g. There is always an agenda. There is always history. Why are you telling me this specific story right now in this particular way?)
Therefore, we watch our news sources to see which ones present their information with not only integrity but in a way which is congruent to how a news source should be disseminating information.
Tucker Carlson. Everyone says he's compromised. However, he asks specific questions I would personally ask which are not just surface level questions. I would rate him at a higher level of reliability then say the nightly news which just tells me to take a jab so I don't kill grandma.
Anthony Fauci. Lies consistently. Consistently spreads disinformation. Agenda is to make money at all costs or worse.
Bill Gates. Polio deaths. Agenda is to kill people and make money doing it. Has killed people and made money doing it.
Alex Jones. Again possibly compromised. Possibly more entertainer then news source. Still asks valid questions e.g. Bilderberg group. May be crazy. Sometimes just want to give him a sedative or get somebody to give him a hug.
Nightly news. Completely compromised. They are getting paid to make you take the vaccine. No questions are being asked. You might as well be watching the Muppet Show.
Sources can be categorized in the way they present the "truth", how much they are paid, and how they are paid to do it.
Is it us analyzing and verifying that information? No. We don't have time to verify everything scientifically. But we can still make decisions with regards to who gets to use the brush that paints the picture we see when we look at the world.
And you may have noticed that lately, as conspiracy theorists, our (borrowed from everyone else) picture of the world is starting to look a lot more accurate (then even we wanted it to. There's a reason we don't talk about bigfoot much anymore).