General News Thread 2.0



Studies say a lot all the time. They even say conflicting things based on who is paying.

It seems like it’s say what you want and then walk away from the repercussions.


So? Away with studies, random statements on the Internet are the better thing?


No of course not. But simply saying something was found in a study has no more weight with me than something anyone (myself) says on a internet forum. The truth is what you pay it to be.



As far as I am aware, there has been no reliably demonstrated cause-effect relationship between video games and levels of violence. I’m not asserting that this is your opinion, but until such a relationship can be demonstrated to exist, it would be unreasonable for someone to believe that one does



You are sharing your thoughts as I am sharing mine.

If you say it is unreasonable-that is what you say.


I might be mistaken, but are you saying that a belief in something without proper demonstration of its existence is a reasonable one?


Im simple words I just said



I’m too confused to want to get into a debate on the topic, so I suppose I shall just let it go (which, I’ll admit, is an incredibly hard thing for me to do, but I’ve been trying lately to get less worked up about inconsequential things) :slightly_smiling_face:


Here’s all of orange-man’s lies at CPAC


I guess you are asking me in a complicate way for the specific studies so you can check who paid them for it.

Here is an example:

Contrary to the claims that violent video games are linked to aggressive assaults and homicides, no evidence was found to suggest that this medium was positively related to real-world violence in the United States. Unexpectedly, many of the results were suggestive of a decrease in violent crime in response to violent video games.

Dunno how to find out who paid for this specific work, but in case you find something, I am eager to know that too. :slight_smile:


are you saying it isn’t? is all religion therefore unreasonable?

(hint, there are two answers to this and one of them is the edgy atheist one you might want to avoid)


I believe that if one cannot demonstrate that the subject of a claim exists, then a belief in said subject’s existence would be unreasonable, yes. I don’t see a problem with that, but my mind is not unchangeable and I welcome any arguments that may contradict this belief and convince me otherwise


No bro, I am direct in case you ain’t noticed. If I wanted to ask I would have.

My argument is simply referring to “studies” to say one thing or another is not enough for me. Studies can say anything. Especially when influenced by an agenda or money.

My only concern is the source of the information not that academics are hacks or not worthy of attention.

I only have these links to show that I can pull out “studies” to validate my own view point.

Simply saying “studies show…” is not good enough.

Studies show I am a degenerate, and should have been dead more than 10 years ago.


In everyday life that surely is working, though in science it was established to leave the idea of inductive reasoning and go for falsification. Pretty much because theories that were proven for a long time turned out to be false. Like the Newtonian mechanics.


I understand what falsification is, but could you define “inductive reasoning” for me? It’s a term I’ve heard before but have never looked into, for whatever reason


I am aware of that, that is why I did not take the first fishiest source I can find but one that seems to be quite big, peer-reviewed and ongoing for updates.


To be fair, I must admit that I agree with this line of logic. It does not mean that the studies are wrong, but like any other conclusion drawn by or for humans, we must stop to question it.


Inductive reasoning is the idea to find knowledge that is true in general by evidence from experiences. The problem is that the experience is just subjective and therefore must not be valid in general.

For example again the Newtonian mechanics. The reason why it was seen as true for so long is 1. experiments were for a long time not able to measure relativistic effects (they had little effect on the daily life of the 19th century or past it anyway) and 2. that the idea of inductive reasoning made people think doubt is not appropriate in regard of a “proven” “fact”.