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...
Is it normal not to trust sites that call themselves "The truth about"
← View full post
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...