Because for progressives and nearly all modern liberals, attacking the person you're debating is the tactic, not addressing the actual topic being debated.
No, which is why the "appeal to authority" fallacy is such a flawed method, because it fails to address the root of the problem.
It's like stating that "Pedatric Science shows peer-reviewed evidence that transitioning 5 year olds is a net-positive for mental well-being"
Ridiculous example, but that's why it's an issue. If modern science is thoroughly compromised, asking for "peer review" on such topics from the scientific establishment is like asking if the Mafia believes that organized crime is a net-benefit to society.
"Experts say that science suggests that peer reviewed studies may show that there is a possible link to propoganda has some possible influence on how one can potentially react in some unexpected form, early studies reveal."
I don't care if somebody asks me for a source. Virtually every fact I state is going to be reflected in the introduction paragraph of the Wikipedia article on the introduction to a subject, and Wikipedia almost always has links to its sources.
It’s amazing to me that anyone trusts the corporate media after the Jussie Smollett Hoax. How does that not make even liberals go, “Could these media corporations actually being willing to lie for ratings and agenda?”
"Are you prepared to be deprogrammed".....😆😆😁
kek. Morans.
The original post seems to be about getting to the actual information.
The comments on the r board seem to be about the people.
Sad. ~{°¡°}~
That's always how it goes over there.
Because for progressives and nearly all modern liberals, attacking the person you're debating is the tactic, not addressing the actual topic being debated.
Ooh. They're going to send us peer-reviewed papers.
And we're the ones who are brainwashed...
"MuH pEeR rEvIeW"
"LeTs SeE yOuR cReDeNtIaLs"
"sOuRcEs"
"ExPerTs SaY"
"ThE sCiEnCe iS SeTtLeD"
"PrObLeMaTiC YiKes oOf My DuDe"
Fuck Reddit.
Is there any difference between "peer review" and "academic circle jerk"?
Asking for a fren.
No, which is why the "appeal to authority" fallacy is such a flawed method, because it fails to address the root of the problem.
It's like stating that "Pedatric Science shows peer-reviewed evidence that transitioning 5 year olds is a net-positive for mental well-being"
Ridiculous example, but that's why it's an issue. If modern science is thoroughly compromised, asking for "peer review" on such topics from the scientific establishment is like asking if the Mafia believes that organized crime is a net-benefit to society.
"Experts say that science suggests that peer reviewed studies may show that there is a possible link to propoganda has some possible influence on how one can potentially react in some unexpected form, early studies reveal."
There’s the problem.
"I'm good at repeating propaganda"
It’s amazing to me that anyone trusts the corporate media after the Jussie Smollett Hoax. How does that not make even liberals go, “Could these media corporations actually being willing to lie for ratings and agenda?”