Ask Your Question today
I seldom trust any site/article/book/etc. that bears the title "The truth about [insert subject]", because I feel that if someone calls themself that, I assume they are trying to promote a biased opinion rather than just giving facts. Is that normal?
They are usually selling a book so you tell me.
I belong to an organisation that is regularly a target for complete crap like that, then when you point out the errors, lies, inconsistencies and logic fails the reply is 'you're not high enough up to know'.
I usually try to examine different, conflicting and mutually exclusive theories/hypotheses.
I more or less agree with you. When I was studying the Bermuda Triangle, there were plenty of those 'the truth about' books, but they were all just the same old thing rehashed.
One, which purported to 'explain' the mysteries of the Triangle, actually did a really good job of punching holes in everybody else's theories. Go figure. Every once in a while a gem shines in the muck.
So what conclusion did you come to about the Bermuda Triangle? And if it is real, how can we get all your clones into it?
Unfortunately, there is nothing otherworldly or particularly odd about the 'disappearances' in the Bermuda Triangle. If you take into account that around 30% of the storied disappearances didn't happen anywhere near the triangle, the fact that the whole thing is in a very active area for hurricanes and that the Gulfstream flows through it, the number of truly unexplained disappearances are no more prolific than anywhere else on the planet.
However, when we are sailing through it, it is NOT an acceptable subject for discussion or derision. Go figure.
I certainly don't.
Truth is based on evidence and evidence speaks for itself. You can present the evidence and that's fine, but my main worry about people attempting to claim "truths" are that they're presenting evidence to back up a claim that they made before they had the evidence to back it up. It pretty much sums up most types of fraud in the realm of scientific study - someone wants to prove a claim to be "true" so they purposefully doctor evidence or collect evidence that only backs up their claim or strengthens their attempt at proving a causal relationship or strong correlation between whatever they're trying to prove. Yes, it happens. Even scientists and researchers can be guilty of corruption.
Truth usually tends to be a subjective opinion. The reliability of the facts tends to strengthen or weaken truth but the key word is reliability...
I don't trust them either, nor do I trust books etc that have lots of capital letters in bold and lots of exclamation marks ... trying to hard with falacious bullshit in my experience