• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Snopes = Scam?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
the first link questions the validity of the author:



So, basically, they are exposing a rather distrustful eye towards an argument made by a chiropractor--quoting his Dr. title, and simply announcing his field.

It's like the "scientists" that the fundies bring out to support ID are always astrologers or fringe physicists; scientists that have absolutely no expertise in Biology, Molecular genetics, or any other scientific field that works with evolution. In such cases, it's important to point out the source of so-called expert opinions, b/c an expert in one area is a complete layman in another.
Click to expand...

yeah, exactly... it doesn't say anything for or against chiropractors, like i said.

as the article said, it's the validity of a political scientist vs a dentist or someone else in an unrelated field to politics.

doesn't matter anyways... that isn't the topic of this thread.
 
eits said:
yeah, exactly... it doesn't say anything for or against chiropractors, like i said.

as the article said, it's the validity of a political scientist vs a dentist or someone else in an unrelated field to politics.

doesn't matter anyways... that isn't the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

uh...what? why didn't you read my quote, and read their comment? They blatantly call into question the dude's expertise on the subject matter that he is bitching about b/c he is a chiropractor. They are skeptical based on his professional credentials.

No, it's not a piece outright blasting chiropractors, but that simple comment makes it rather clear that his being a chiropractor is reason enough to question his expertise, and to question the title Dr. They put it in quotes. ....you know what that means, right?


This is in the first link. not the one about bathtubs.
 
zinfamous said:
uh...what? why didn't you read my quote, and read their comment? They blatantly call into question the dude's expertise on the subject matter that he is bitching about b/c he is a chiropractor. They are skeptical based on his professional credentials.

No, it's not a piece outright blasting chiropractors, but that simple comment makes it rather clear that his being a chiropractor is reason enough to question his expertise, and to question the title Dr. They put it in quotes. ....you know what that means, right?


This is in the first link. not the one about bathtubs.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You missed the point entirely and are misusing context. They don't call into question what he is saying specifically because he is a Chiropractor, but rather because he doesn't hold a doctorate in a field which relates to the subject at hand.

If the good Dr. Steven Tomaselli holds that title because he has earned a doctorate in a field such as political science, his opinions might be expected to offer informative insights; if he's a dentist or a mathematics professor, there's no real reason to expect his opinions to be more noteworthy than those of millions of other citizens. (For the record, "Dr." Tomaselli is a chiropractor.)
Click to expand...
 
Juddog said:
Wrong. You missed the point entirely and are misusing context. They don't call into question what he is saying specifically because he is a Chiropractor, but rather because he doesn't hold a doctorate in a field which relates to the subject at hand.

[/b]
Click to expand...

They are doing both. They are pointing out that he is not only not an expert in the field of discussion, but also that he refers to himself as a doctor, when he is merely a chiropractor. I however agree with their sentiment. The AMA is NOT VERY KEEN on this title being used be such "professionals".

Now I'm doing it!🙂
 
Juddog said:
Wrong. You missed the point entirely and are misusing context. They don't call into question what he is saying specifically because he is a Chiropractor, but rather because he doesn't hold a doctorate in a field which relates to the subject at hand.

[/b]
Click to expand...

fair enough, but putting Dr in quotes, as in "Dr" Tomassi, is more than just challenging him as someone commenting from the improper field--it's challenging his credentials as an actual "Dr."

Meaning, his chosen field is up for debate in terms of deserving doctor status. This is obvious use of sarcasm to me; or a simple up-turned brow. 😉
 
FelixDeKat said:
Snopes likes to portray itself as the ultimate and final arbiter of all that is factually correct and incorrect. It isnt.

It provides an opinion and some evidence to support those opinions (flimsy as it may be). But in the end, its just that - THEIR OPINION.

People like to give Snopes more credit than they are due and consider certain items "debunked" if said opinion is given. In reality, that is an erroneous position to take.
Click to expand...

This. I seem to recall snopes saying that people dying at amusment parks was a myth, or something like that. Well, my local paper a few years back, had an article on just that, someone did die at a local amusement park. I wanted to cut out the article and send it to snopes just to prove them wrong, but I didn't feel like actually paying for a paper.
 
VirtualLarry said:
This. I seem to recall snopes saying that people dying at amusment parks was a myth, or something like that. Well, my local paper a few years back, had an article on just that, someone did die at a local amusement park. I wanted to cut out the article and send it to snopes just to prove them wrong, but I didn't feel like actually paying for a paper.
Click to expand...

they have been wrong a few times.
 
VirtualLarry said:
This. I seem to recall snopes saying that people dying at amusment parks was a myth, or something like that. Well, my local paper a few years back, had an article on just that, someone did die at a local amusement park. I wanted to cut out the article and send it to snopes just to prove them wrong, but I didn't feel like actually paying for a paper.
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that Snopes came to the simple conclusion that no one ever dies at amusement parks. I think you, a. read a parody, b. missed the point, c. were baked. d. all of the above.
 
SphinxnihpS said:
They are doing both. They are pointing out that he is not only not an expert in the field of discussion, but also that he refers to himself as a doctor, when he is merely a chiropractor. I however agree with their sentiment. The AMA is NOT VERY KEEN on this title being used be such "professionals".

Now I'm doing it!🙂
Click to expand...

i disagree. i read the paragraph a few times over and i can see where you can possibly see the that kind of tone in there, but it just isn't there. they're simply saying that he's not an expert in political affairs, so his opinion is about as valid as a dentist's or a professor's.

if they said "the good 'doctor' tomaselli" and put "doctor" in quotes, then i would agree with you and zin. however, they were simply explaining what kind of doctor he was, since they referenced different professions that hold the title "doctor".
 
eits said:
i disagree. i read the paragraph a few times over and i can see where you can possibly see the that kind of tone in there, but it just isn't there. they're simply saying that he's not an expert in political affairs, so his opinion is about as valid as a dentist's or a professor's.

if they said "the good 'doctor' tomaselli" and put "doctor" in quotes, then i would agree with you and zin. however, they were simply explaining what kind of doctor he was, since they referenced different professions that hold the title "doctor".
Click to expand...

^^ Precisely.
 
GodlessAstronomer said:
What do you mean "the good old days"? Snopes is still the resource for debunking bullshit.
Click to expand...

Pretty much; I've used it 3 times over the past 2 weeks from people sending me stupid bullsh!t e-mails. Last one that was sent to me was of the alligator and rattlesnakes found in pipes when construction crews were digging. I looked it up and saw it was a variation of some chain e-mails that started back in 2003.
 
KB said:
They often provide sources for their information which is more than your typical internet post.
Click to expand...

"Often"? Are there pages on snopes where they come to a conclusion that does not cite at least one source?

Snopes is the place to go because they back up their conclusions with legit cites.


That reminds me, I REALLY need to change my father-in-law's home page to snopes. It would cut my useless e-mails in half.

MotionMan
 
lol

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives have started a smear campaign against Snopes since 95% or better of all politically slanted chain emails are anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. It should surprise me even less that they've created their own version of Snopes but with a conservative bias.

Some people have a very difficult time accepting reality (conservatives AND liberals).
 
child of wonder said:
lol

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives have started a smear campaign against Snopes since 95% or better of all politically slanted chain emails are anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. It should surprise me even less that they've created their own version of Snopes but with a conservative bias.

Some people have a very difficult time accepting reality (conservatives AND liberals).
Click to expand...

Yeah some of the right-wing "slanted" e-mails I have seen were pretty ridiculous. One actually tried to say that Obama wasn't a US citizen! LOL
 
child of wonder said:
lol

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives have started a smear campaign against Snopes since 95% or better of all politically slanted chain emails are anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. It should surprise me even less that they've created their own version of Snopes but with a conservative bias.

Some people have a very difficult time accepting reality (conservatives AND liberals).
Click to expand...

conservative version of snopes = truthorfiction.com?
 
child of wonder said:
lol

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that conservatives have started a smear campaign against Snopes since 95% or better of all politically slanted chain emails are anti-liberal or anti-Democrat. It should surprise me even less that they've created their own version of Snopes but with a conservative bias.

Some people have a very difficult time accepting reality (conservatives AND liberals).
Click to expand...

95% of statistics are made up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top