[dumbcluck]

Getting back to the matter of "evidence" in support of your posts. This is asking the impossible. The only evidence available to us is the media. And that ain't no evidence. You can be posting an article based on a media article which you quote and that media article could very well be incorrect in many or all detail...or even a phony. The next best thing is not assumptions...but analytical argument....you put forward you post supported by common sensual rationale.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[NotFrogman]

dumbcluck, on 18 November 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

The only evidence available to us is the media.

You are literally sitting in front of the greatest repository of knowledge in human history.

Scholar.Google.Com would be a good start.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

NotFrogman, on 18 November 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

You are literally sitting in front of the greatest repository of knowledge in human history.

Scholar.Google.Com would be a good start.

Spot on, from detailed knowledge on just about anything to the correct use of 'too' and 'to' (which don't make 'fore').

It's all there,

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

You do not get it do you? You are talking about "information" not evidence. This is the same as when the media says that Joe Blow is a murderer. That is information. However it is not proof that Joe Blow is really the murderer is it...just because you read it on the media?????

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

dumbcluck, on 19 November 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

You do not get it do you?

The amount of times I have thought this about yours posts is truly astronomical

Quote

You are talking about "information" not evidence.

You are getting confused. Evidence is information. Evidence can be any number of things. The link that I posted is a database of peer reviewed studies, that most people would classify as evidence. I agree with your premise that you cant trust the shit that you read in the MSM, which is why I dont read the shit in the MSM. I suggest you do the same.

Also, the internet holds such information as the entirety of the ABS. If you link one of their pages, it can easily be classified as evidence. If you link to a blog site that references these stats, then it is much more reliable that an blog site that references nothing. I suggest looking at Grogs Gamut. Its a blog focused largely on economic matters (though he does through some sport and entertainment stuff in as well) that is chock full of charts and stats from the ABS, and as such it is a reliable source of information.

Quote

This is the same as when the media says that Joe Blow is a murderer. That is information. However it is not proof that Joe Blow is really the murderer is it...just because you read it on the media?????

No. Unreferenced and unsourced bullshit like the above can safely be ignored. Referenced and cited material, like Grogs Gamut is reliable. You might not agree with his explanation, but the charts and data he posts are facts.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

Look boys (and girls if any) you keep saying this and that is reliable...however you know as well as I do that even expert data/articles written by eminent persons can be inaccurate. After all they are written by....human beings who are susceptible to making errors. No one is infallible in this planet you know. Grant it these articles would be close to the truth (as they would be written by experts etc). However they are not immune from being erroneous. Furthermore, they can be, and frequently are opinions as well. As an example if you get 10 astronomers to each give a report on the solar system...I bet that you get 10 different interpretations of the solar system. Would you call this evidence?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

dumbcluck, on 20 November 2012 - 08:00 AM, said:

Look boys (and girls if any) you keep saying this and that is reliable...however you know as well as I do that even expert data/articles written by eminent persons can be inaccurate. After all they are written by....human beings who are susceptible to making errors. No one is infallible in this planet you know. Grant it these articles would be close to the truth (as they would be written by experts etc). However they are not immune from being erroneous. Furthermore, they can be, and frequently are opinions as well. As an example if you get 10 astronomers to each give a report on the solar system...I bet that you get 10 different interpretations of the solar system. Would you call this evidence?

Do you know what a peer reviewed study is?

Do you ever accept any information from official government statisticians? If not, post reasoning why.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

We are getting of subject here.From media articles we have forward to other issues.You are placing too much trust in human nature. This shows naivete. And you seem not to know about analytical argument. Does anyone know what that is?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.