Legitimate Knowledge In The Digital Age.

**SmokenScion** · 08-24-12, 04:19 PM

But Libraries on the other hand can teach you something?

**-Lazarus-** · 08-25-12, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Unfortunately this is far less likely to happen because of the internet. You dont have to do any of that with free flowing information. The mass of information alone precludes you having to think at all. You select what you want and ignore the rest. That is the difference between knowledge and wisdom of which cant be learned or taught thru google.

And this, this is exactly why I was talking about in my post referenced earlier. Thorsen, I agree that there is a wealth of information on the Internet. The problem is that amidst that awesome volume of knowledge, there is also a ton of unmitigated bullshit out there. Here's a nice little example:

http://www.darkgovernment.com/moon.html

What I was saying previously was that someone would need to know what to look for when starting to avoid shit information. Or they would have to research enough to be able to identify the shit. This would come from more advanced research on a subject.

In the days when books were published and there was no internet, books cost enough to publish that it was far less likely to run into a bunch of bullshit while researching a subject. Furthermore, people were forced to think about a subject longer before communicating their opinion. Today you can see people who clearly know very little about a subject and find things that agree with whatever they want to try and say to support an argument and ignore the rest, as DG said. I personally would spend enough time to know a subject before trying to comment on it, or I would admit my lack of knowledge up front. I can't say I have seen others do this... And that is what is wrong with the internets.

**MaFioSo** · 08-25-12, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by triggerhappy2005

Lazarus disagrees with you....

This will go down as one, if not the, most moronic post ever on these forums. The contrast between Thorsen's post and this pile couldn't be more stark.

Saved for posterity lol

**Thorsen** · 08-25-12, 10:58 PM

Laz' I mostly agree with what you're saying, and FYI I did not make this thread as a direct response to you, although your posts made me think about the subject again.

That said I've always followed the line of reasoning that reality is independent of opinion or understanding. In other words whether or not someone understands the statistics and data they present has no bearing on the validity of said data. I would argue that two people could actually have a coherent debate on a subject about which they have only basic previous knowledge, using only information gathered on the spot online.

Point being, whether you respect the person presenting the facts, whether you believe they know what they're talking about or not, simply attack the data presented and you will succeed.

**iLLusioN** · 08-25-12, 11:15 PM

Unfortunately until public education is fixed(not based on standardized test), critical thinking skills will not be a focus...it isn't required for multiple choice and short answer testing.

**phidan** · 08-26-12, 12:44 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

And this, this is exactly why I was talking about in my post referenced earlier. Thorsen, I agree that there is a wealth of information on the Internet. The problem is that amidst that awesome volume of knowledge, there is also a ton of unmitigated bullshit out there. Here's a nice little example:

Reasons why man has never gone to the moon

What I was saying previously was that someone would need to know what to look for when starting to avoid shit information. Or they would have to research enough to be able to identify the shit. This would come from more advanced research on a subject.

In the days when books were published and there was no internet, books cost enough to publish that it was far less likely to run into a bunch of bullshit while researching a subject. Furthermore, people were forced to think about a subject longer before communicating their opinion. Today you can see people who clearly know very little about a subject and find things that agree with whatever they want to try and say to support an argument and ignore the rest, as DG said. I personally would spend enough time to know a subject before trying to comment on it, or I would admit my lack of knowledge up front. I can't say I have seen others do this... And that is what is wrong with the internets.

says the guy who posted this in the nuclear power thread

Fukushima Radiation On US West Coast - Mainstream Media Coverup - coupmedia.org

**-Lazarus-** · 08-26-12, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by phidan

says the guy who posted this in the nuclear power thread

Fukushima Radiation On US West Coast - Mainstream Media Coverup - coupmedia.org

Phidan, research this one for yourself. It's pretty easy to find the data where the US EPA raised their numbers for acceptable levels of radioactive isotopes, etc.

More info:
Report: Fukushima Radiation Could Kill More Than 1,000 - US News and World Report

**phidan** · 08-26-12, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Phidan, research this one for yourself. It's pretty easy to find the data where the US EPA raised their numbers for acceptable levels of radioactive isotopes, etc.

More info:
Report: Fukushima Radiation Could Kill More Than 1,000 - US News and World Report

You still posted a garbage article by a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

Then show it to me. The title of that report implies the worst case scenario. I actually decided to read the original article, which i will link here if you chose to read it yourself instead of reading headlines.

According to that paper:
Health effects from inhalation, external exposure, and ingestion of radionuclides from the Fukushima accident are estimated to result in 130 (15–1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24–1800) cancer-related morbidities worldwide, taking into account incertainties associated with the exposure–dose and dose–response models employed.

The main problem with this study, which they readily admit, is that they use a linear no threshold model. This model suggests that each individual radionuclide disintegration has the same probability of causing cell transformation and that each transformed cell has the same probability of developing into a cancer. (mostly word for word from the study)

This model makes assumptions that are simply not true. While it is true that each individual radionucleotide has a specific probability for causing a mutation, it takes more than one mutation in a cell to cause cancer. Our bodies have evolved (or perhaps for you, were designed) with multiple fail-safes to prevent cancer. It would take more than one mutation in a cell to cause cancer, as such I think even the conservative estimates in this paper greatly overestimate cancer risks.

Paper here:
http://www.stanford.edu/~tenhoeve/pu...uclear2012.pdf

**-Lazarus-** · 08-26-12, 09:04 AM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcma...-vermont-milk/

The problem is that the source of the radiation reported here has not been contained and probably can't be. This isn't the same thing as a nuclear test for example. So levels will continue to grow. In response to this, the EPA is planning to simply increase their recommended maximum exposure levels for most of the isotopes. I suspect this is because there is little they can do. If the cooling pools at reactor 4 lose their water level, the problem gets much, much worse.

The point is that the Japanese government and the US government are covering many of the facts relating to the disaster up. This was all I was trying to say in my post. In reference to this discussion, it would be quite easy to post what the Japanese and US governments are saying and cite their sources, when they may not be the best sources of information because of a vested interest not to tell us what is happening.