What is the most effective method of adjudicating the truth?

It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Who is right. But often it's who is right about who people prefer (.i.e. predicting election winners).

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions.

What difference does it make, Clinton and Podesta are in bed with Russia.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.

If this is a matter of word choice, it'll need clarification/course correction. But if "who is right" can be switched out with "what is factually correct" or "what is objectively true", then there is already a method of determination: the scientific method.

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions.

I wonder how Ellimist feels about dictorial truths or other forms of aristocratic or corrupt truths.

Breitbart is crushing the internet. 200,000,000 Pageviews in Month; 11.5M in Single Day

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/13/breitbart-news-received-200-million-pageviews-september/

Landslide coming.

Almost every message being projected outward from her campaign is negative, and a candidate with high distrust ratings should not be doing this, and my phone has been ringing and my email box has been full with Democrats who like me who support her but who, like me, are appalled and losing confidence. I have never seen anything like this. This campaign is devoid of positive messages, uplifting appeal, and coherent rationale. And bluntly, it is getting to the point where every word she utters, there are more young people and first time participants in politics who support Bernie who would not support her in a general election no matter how hard I and others try to persuade them.....and whoever persuaded her that running for Obama's third term is the way to win a general election is far removed from American politics in 2016, and if they think she can constantly shift her position they do not understand the depth of distrust of her and the damage it does.... and they do not understand in the modern communications environment she cannot be a centrist one day and a liberal the next day because images and impressions are formed and locked in far earlier than in the 1970's to 1990's. This is a campaign that has never had a compelling rationale and now has lost its way into a sea of negativity.....the way for her to be elected is to solve the first problem, and develop some uplifting reason for voters to support her, and not to create a second problem, running a negative campaign without a positive message and vision.....

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7742

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It's good to see this has turned into another argument about the election.

If this is a matter of word choice, it'll need clarification/course correction. But if "who is right" can be switched out with "what is factually correct" or "what is objectively true", then there is already a method of determination: the scientific method.

Throwing the "who" in there and making it about opinions just makes it... about opinions.

The scientific method may be the means of investigation but you still need some sort of due process to determine whose conclusions we buy. If twenty scientists come up with four different evaluations of a theory relevant to policy, we need some methodology to determine who used said scientific method better. Science doesn't have some divine judge that does that for us.

What makes for successful immigration?

It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face.

The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances.The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.

Even if there is a disparity in the intellectual distribution of demographic groups, there's far more variation within a group than there is between them, so enacting blanket policy with that proxy is incredibly unfair. Not that I expect the above poster to understand what I just said.

You could not understand anything in the first place, the entire thread is basically ignoring the most effective form of adjudicating the truth. So you pretty much failed.

And what is this "most effective" manner?

The emails you tried to ignore cause you love Hillary so much.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Even if there is a disparity in the intellectual distribution of demographic groups, there's far more variation within a group than there is between them, so enacting blanket policy with that proxy is incredibly unfair. Not that I expect the above poster to understand what I just said.

We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone.

Originally posted by Its2016
im pretty confident more disparity within races are untrue.

That's statistically absurd. IQ is normally distributed and defined on a standard deviation of 15; there's no way two ethnic groups could have more variation between them than within them, not unless like one group has an average IQ of 200 and the other of 50.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone.

I recognise debate is within the scientific community and part of finding truth. But having stated previous flaws with democracy, is an authoritarian model of truth better? Law, feudalism, etc.

Originally posted by Its2016
okay, ill stay on topic.

I recognise debate is within the scientific community and part of finding truth. But having stated previous flaws with democracy, is an authoritarian model of truth better? Law, feudalism, etc.

I was talking to TI, not you, assuming you are different people.

I don't think dictatorships are typically that truthful either. They're probably worse.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
We aren't talking about Hillary's emails, or any one event in particular. We're talking about a broader, theoretical criteria for evaluating truth claims. This is incredibly obvious to anyone with the faculties to grasp complex, abstract ideas, but other people are more suited to understanding more concrete, monotonous tasks, so it isn't a conversation for everyone.

Is this why you have been avoiding the emails?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Is this why you have been avoiding the emails?

WTF does this thread have to do with Hillary's emails? Why does every thread have to be about Hillary's emails?

You literally don't understand a word that anyone says that involves any sort of intellectual thought processes beyond metaphorically screaming Trump slogans into your keyboard.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
WTF does this thread have to do with Hillary's emails? Why does every thread have to be about Hillary's emails?

You literally don't understand a word that anyone says that involves any sort of intellectual thought processes beyond metaphorically screaming Trump slogans into your keyboard.

Ironic since this exactly what you just did in the other thread just a minute ago.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I was talking to TI, not you, assuming you are different people.

I don't think dictatorships are typically that truthful either. They're probably worse.