And as human beings, we have rights, not derived From government.
Self defense is number one.

I find that statement intriguing..... is it held to its own standard, as well?

Oh man! Super important question right?

My belief in confirmation bias originally comes from reading about two controversial experiments out of Stanford in the 70's that seemed to show that normally rational people could be made to make irrational decisions by telling the subjects incorrect information about how well they did guessing if a set a suicide letters were legit or fabricated.

Cool stuff, but sure: If you're an academic you want to publish shocking things, so peer review is necessary.

In this case thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities have confirmed their findings, and my experience with these social scientists has been that they are very clever and take control populations very seriously...

I find this threshold pretty immutable, but it's still not undebatable. Nothing is, but there's definitely some sort of tipping-point grey-area where the burden of proof shifts to the other side, like how we know the world isn't flat or how gravity is still technically a theory. Obviously confirmation bias evidence isn't nearly as string as those examples, but it is generally accepted as a true phenomenon and this acceptance has a string basis in study and review...

in this case thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities have confirmed their findings, and my experience with these social scientists has been that they are very clever and take control populations very seriously...

So, seems it could fall into judgement, of its own design, based on the commonality of their scientific community group think, if we are to hold ALL theories/beliefs scrutiny to the same factors.....

Or, am I missing something?

I can say, without fear of being rebuffed, that every single person who ever ate a carrot, has died.

I never assigned it cause, but too, without all the facts, known, can it be dismissed, either, and by such default, a carrot ate, is now linked to possibly causing death.

Lets default then to observed reality, which I think was Jog's point.

Perhaps he has himself eaten bushels of carrots, and still suffered no adverse effects.
Nor has any of his friends, who like to dress up like bunny rabbits, and eat carrots from TT's garden.

So chances are Jog finds no value, or truth, to my default argument that carrots cause death, through observed reality.

Lets use your declaration that we now "know" the earth is flat.....

Accepting that as truth, I then instruct a group of friends to not be afraid of the rim, or edge, of the Grand Canyon, and to venture as close to it, or step off, if they so desire, because the earth is flat.....

To remove context, or bias, or a persons very own uniqueness, is to relinquish, or deny, the very core of a persons soul, or being.

To then lump it/them, together, to achieve an outcome, brings the sword full circle and cuts off the foundation upon which it was based, in the beginning.

The only way to circumvent this outcome, is to be a member of the BIGGEST herd.

But of course, that just returns it back to square one, again, and again, and again......

I ask then....... Who is right?

Wouldn't the answer lie within the question, "Why do I need, to be right?"

I need to be correct because there is No Benefit in being incorrect.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 08/05/17 at 18:42:11:


Please explain advertising then Jog.

Do our courts seek the truth, or do they seek an outcome of which they have been hired to achieve?

LockeClone - some great points, and the faux news phenomena might just be an example.  Keep the good stuff rolling.

So who decides what is faux news then?

Why can no one answer what the criteria is for that....
Seems it's just another group think rule thing, like global warming, etc.