Authority

[gemcgrew]

What relevance does your information have to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago? None. The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.

It feels relevant.

 

[bullethead]

What relevance does your information have to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago? None. The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.

My information is telling you that what you read 20 and 60 years ago was incorrect and neither should have been used as your example because some of the information is definitely wrong and possibly all the information is not accurate or known.

In essence you are asking me if the correct pronunciation of the Capital of Kentucky is pronounced "Looo-ee-ville" or "Loo-is-ville"?
When the correct answer is Frankfurt.
And you are mad at me because you used bad into from the start.

Check your source, the source's source and on and on.

 

[bullethead]

It feels relevant.

He doesn't feel informed now. He is informed.

 

[Spotlite]

As compared to, "feelings"?
Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.

Below is what I mean by it’s just a big circle. It keeps changing based on new info. If anything changes based on new evidence, was its’ previous status really ever “for sure”.

When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China. About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000 from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China. Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)? Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?

 

[gemcgrew]

Check your source, the source's source and on and on.

This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?

 

[bullethead]

This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?

The wrong sources certainly are.
Fortunately the ones that can be checked and confirmed are superb.

 

[bullethead]

This shows that your sources are an unreliable path to knowledge. What point are you trying to make?

Have I mentioned any of my sources?

 

[gemcgrew]

Have I mentioned any of my sources?

Only that you don't have any reliable sources. This is why you must use sources to check sources... ad infinitum.

 

[hummerpoo]

He doesn't feel informed now. He is informed.

In attempting to understand my failure to communicate my thoughts concerning the cave/rift, it might be helpful if you would tell me what it is of which you feel I have been informed.

 

[bullethead]

Only that you don't have any reliable sources. This is why you must use sources to check sources... ad infinitum.

Not at all.
You seem to interpret it that way, possibly because you take the word of the first source and go with it. It is shown time after time that is unrelaible.
Most times checking sources only goes back 2 or 3. Thats all the information available and needed. Researchers/authors/scientists will often list their sources so others can check.
Are you making the case that the ability to confirm reliable sources and the accuracy of each is an improper way to go about checking facts?

 

[bullethead]

In attempting to understand my failure to communicate my thoughts concerning the cave/rift, it might be helpful if you would tell me what it is of which you feel I have been informed.

I get what you are saying about the Cave/rift..Rift/cave. But at that point the articles are already garbage.
What I am saying is that if the person that wrote that is also trying to pass off to you that Man first used fire 10,000 years ago and the other person is saying No, no, no, man First used fire 13,000 years ago (To me Alarms went off right away that they do not know what they are talking about) that both of them are wrong and whatever they write after those two incredibly erroneous mistakes is also going to be incorrect. Bottom line is they are sources that cannot be trusted.

Now i get the fact that you are not going go to go to that particular cave yourself and try to see whether it is a cave or a rift or whether or not you find a ledge or check how far things are down in the dirt. But you CAN check to see if what was written 60 and 20 years ago goes along with the research, archeology, and results of others.
Right off the bat both of your sources state numbers of when man FIRST used fire. They missed the years by almost 2 million.
Hopefully, (teehee, giggle giggle, Giggity-Giggity or whatever other goofy thing you want to throw in there) is that you have been informed to check your information before using it as examples.

Or another very plausible explanation is that what you read 60 and 20 years ago is not as you remember it now.
It is possible that the articles/stories talked about when man first used in that particular Cave/Rift. And I do not know what other points of information that you may or may not be leaving out to clear up the Cave/Rift discrepancy....which based off of the information you have provided...cleared that up on its own...
And that if you are really concerned enough about finding out the answers between the two, you absolutely could search farther into it to clear up any questions you might have about a cave or a rift....or you can wait another 20 years in the hopes you catch another article about it.

 

[660griz]

When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China.

I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago.

About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000 from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China.

Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift.

Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)?

It was a rift. According to what you wrote.

Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?

In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.

 

[bullethead]

I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago. Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift. It was a rift. According to what you wrote. In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.

I am just guessing but it seems that regarding a 6th grade textbook, the intent was not about whether it was a cave or a rift, but a vague outline about how scientists go about their procedures.
About the only thing I can remember from the 6th grade was I wore a M*A*S*H 4077th shirt to school one day and unbeknownst to me the last epside aired the night before. Two teachers made comments to me about the shirt and I had no idea why...nor did i particularly care.
Actually, i didnt even remember that correctly....The Colonel Henry Blake was killed when his chopper was shot down after getting his orders to go home....I happened to wear the shirt the next day....Adults knew what happened, i had ZERO clue.

 

[660griz]

I am just guessing but it seems that regarding a 6th grade textbook, the intent was not about whether it was a cave or a rift, but a vague outline about how scientists go about their procedures.
About the only thing I can remember from the 6th grade was I wore a M*A*S*H 4077th shirt to school one day and unbeknownst to me the last epside aired the night before. Two teachers made comments to me about the shirt and I had no idea why...nor did i particularly care.

All I remember is this guy that drove to school. Had a beard. 6th grade was the hardest 5 years of his life.
Personally, cave,rift,10000 years, 13000 years, whatever. The lesson I take from that is man was making fire a long time ago. Before Jesus did miracles there were miracles.
I wonder if they worshipped the first person to make fire? If I lived in a cave in Michigan, I probably would. You da man!

 

[hummerpoo]

I get what you are saying about the Cave/rift..Rift/cave. But at that point the articles are already garbage.
What I am saying is that if the person that wrote that is also trying to pass off to you that Man first used fire 10,000 years ago and the other person is saying No, no, no, man First used fire 13,000 years ago (To me Alarms went off right away that they do not know what they are talking about) that both of them are wrong and whatever they write after those two incredibly erroneous mistakes is also going to be incorrect. Bottom line is they are sources that cannot be trusted.

Now i get the fact that you are not going go to go to that particular cave yourself and try to see whether it is a cave or a rift or whether or not you find a ledge or check how far things are down in the dirt. But you CAN check to see if what was written 60 and 20 years ago goes along with the research, archeology, and results of others.
Right off the bat both of your sources state numbers of when man FIRST used fire. They missed the years by almost 2 million.
Hopefully, (teehee, giggle giggle, Giggity-Giggity or whatever other goofy thing you want to throw in there) is that you have been informed to check your information before using it as examples.

Or another very plausible explanation is that what you read 60 and 20 years ago is not as you remember it now.
It is possible that the articles/stories talked about when man first used in that particular Cave/Rift. And I do not know what other points of information that you may or may not be leaving out to clear up the Cave/Rift discrepancy....which based off of the information you have provided...cleared that up on its own...
And that if you are really concerned enough about finding out the answers between the two, you absolutely could search farther into it to clear up any questions you might have about a cave or a rift....or you can wait another 20 years in the hopes you catch another article about it.

Thak you, that is very helpful; and from it I take it that my primary error was in approaching the discussion that was to casual/informal; foolishly not realizing the degree to which informality would be used as logical grapeshot. Of course, avoiding that problem is a formula for sentences becoming essays, and paragraphs becoming books. I don't think I will attempt to solve the problem in this venue.

 

[hummerpoo]

I assumed your 6th grade was more than 20 years ago. Clearly stated is the terms new evidence and rift. It was a rift. According to what you wrote. In the 6th grade textbook, science found evidence in a CAVE. Later, science found evidence in a RIFT.
Seems pretty clear unless you were in 6th grade less than 20 years ago. Then, it is really confusing.
Or, the articles are both speaking about the same event. Then, it is just bad documentation.

I see that comprehension is the likely problem.

 

[bullethead]

Thak you, that is very helpful; and from it I take it that my primary error was in approaching the discussion that was to casual/informal; foolishly not realizing the degree to which informality would be used as logical grapeshot. Of course, avoiding that problem is a formula for sentences becoming essays, and paragraphs becoming books. I don't think I will attempt to solve the problem in this venue.

Is this your first visit here in the AAA?

Your primary error was to use a bad example. And that even being a bad example actually addresses your questions about a cave or a rift. Therefore, no reason to use it in the first place.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” – Edgar Allen Poe

 

[hummerpoo]

Is this your first visit here in the AAA?

Your primary error was to use a bad example. And that even being a bad example actually addresses your questions about a cave or a rift. Therefore, no reason to use it in the first place.

“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” – Edgar Allen Poe

Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".

If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.

 

[hummerpoo]

Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".

If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.

Wait one, that isn't right is it? Yes, the following of my feelings did lead to a negative result (failure to communicate properly) but it was the feeling that determined the action, thus lending evidence that feelings dominate.

 

[bullethead]

Your "first visit" point is dead on, as expressed by my word "foolishly".

If extended a bit, my "primary error" was to prove your point — by allowing my casual feelings to overcome the empirical evidence of hostility.

Hostility?
Hardly, I am sorry if you take/took anything as being hostile. It seems we have now moved onto interpretation of evidence issues.

You were talking accuracy of information from feelings.
I was talking accuracy of information from sources in order to not rely on feelings.
I pointed out that if a person bothers to check the source, they may find out that the information is verifiable or it is incorrect.
In the case of your examples above with the information you gave, incorrect has turned out to be the case.