ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags snopes

Reply
Old 19th September 2019, 02:31 PM   #81
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,803
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I think that's a good list, except that I prefer to use DuckDuckGo over Google Search.

That being said, I refuse to discuss politics with some of my friends because they fail to make the effort I do to get the most accurate information possible. I'm afraid that very few people make any kind of effort at all.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 04:46 PM   #82
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
I think that's a good list, except that I prefer to use DuckDuckGo over Google Search.

That being said, I refuse to discuss politics with some of my friends because they fail to make the effort I do to get the most accurate information possible. I'm afraid that very few people make any kind of effort at all.
DuckDuckGo does not follow your search history, correct?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th September 2019, 06:12 PM   #83
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,790
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
DuckDuckGo does not follow your search history, correct?
Correct. Google uses an undisclosed number (but it is known to be over 40) of parameters to tailor search results, even if you're not logged on. DDG gives bare untailored results. You can turn on location filtering if you want, but you don't have to.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:10 AM   #84
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by Doghouse Reilly View Post
I view the term "stealing" as a legal concept, not a moral one.
Meanwhile in the real world the word "steal" has less restricted meaning. "She stole my boyfriend" is an example. "I was going to buy my mum that for xmas but my brother stole my idea."

eta: Assuming that in example 1 they do not live in a state allowing slavery and that in 2 the speaker did not patent his idea.
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.

Last edited by Wudang; 20th September 2019 at 05:11 AM.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 05:39 AM   #85
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,513
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Correct. Google uses an undisclosed number (but it is known to be over 40) of parameters to tailor search results, even if you're not logged on. DDG gives bare untailored results. You can turn on location filtering if you want, but you don't have to.

You can turn that off

Settings > Search Settings > Do not use private results
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 06:38 AM   #86
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,194
I use firefox so forgive me if I'm wrong here, but if you google something in chrome's incognito mode, doesn't that basically achieve what DDG does?
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2019, 12:56 PM   #87
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 24,307
No. All incognito mode does is not-save cookies, browsing history, and temp files (like downloaded images) after you end your session. Google still sees your IP address when you make the search, and will still use it to tailor results to a degree no matter how many privacy settings you turn off.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 12:08 AM   #88
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
 
CaptainHowdy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,292
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Don't you think that's sort of a joke, though? How can anyone steal the idea for a talk show? Once that idea was out there, it was out there. There's not much to steal. And the hosts of the first talk shows were white guys, so...

Its probably a joke.
I completely made that up myself. But evidently somebody else thought the "alludes to a deeper truth" from Snopes deserved to be mocked as well.
CaptainHowdy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 05:42 AM   #89
Mader Levap
Muse
 
Mader Levap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 594
Looks like Snopes really wanted this rumor to be true (like some people on this thread), but they couldn't prove it. So they used "unproven", even though they practically admitted this particular rumor is false.

Certain people talking about bias and fervently justifying Snopes' conclusion break all the ironymeters. Pathetic.

This kind of things will only make it easier for right-wingers to dismiss Snopes in future (when I used it in past, all they could do is vague complaints about liberal bias). In other words, what Snopes did here is harmful to themself, their reputation and counterproductive.
__________________
Sanity is overrated.
Mader Levap is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 07:02 AM   #90
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,175
I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference if we all agree with the categorization, when Snopes then goes on to cite all their evidence right there?

So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label? It's less important than the article that explains how they reached their conclusion, whatever it was.

I've disagreed with Snopes before. There was a quite recent time where they'd labeled something "False," and after I'd read all their evidence, I didn't think it was strong enough to agree that "False" was warranted. But it didn't make any difference, because I still had all the information.

I can't understand why the Snopes labels are such a big deal when the supporting evidence is right there for one to read, assess, and ultimately agree with or disagree with. Unless a person is adamantly refusing to read the articles, what difference does it make? People can disagree with the conclusions. They're still provided with the evidence, and that's the important part.

Last edited by isissxn; 21st September 2019 at 07:05 AM. Reason: clarity - my inner writer is not present today
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 09:00 AM   #91
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,734
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference if we all agree with the categorization, when Snopes then goes on to cite all their evidence right there?

So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label? It's less important than the article that explains how they reached their conclusion, whatever it was.

I've disagreed with Snopes before. There was a quite recent time where they'd labeled something "False," and after I'd read all their evidence, I didn't think it was strong enough to agree that "False" was warranted. But it didn't make any difference, because I still had all the information.

I can't understand why the Snopes labels are such a big deal when the supporting evidence is right there for one to read, assess, and ultimately agree with or disagree with. Unless a person is adamantly refusing to read the articles, what difference does it make? People can disagree with the conclusions. They're still provided with the evidence, and that's the important part.
I think a reason a label can be important is the same reason a headline can be important, which is oddly enough one of the reasons Snopes is needed.

A lot of people, some might say most people, don't dive very deeply. Headlines, and labels get bandied about on social media, in conversation etc and get confused for information.

Sure, a thoughful person can check for themselves, but enough people will take the soundbite version and run with it. So the language matters. It can have an effect on public discourse. You might say that's the fault of people for not doing the reading, and I'd agree. But knowing that people will behave that way should be a good motivation to be thoughtful about headlines and labels.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 10:30 AM   #92
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,166
Originally Posted by Mader Levap View Post
Looks like Snopes really wanted this rumor to be true (like some people on this thread), but they couldn't prove it. So they used "unproven", even though they practically admitted this particular rumor is false.

Certain people talking about bias and fervently justifying Snopes' conclusion break all the ironymeters. Pathetic.

This kind of things will only make it easier for right-wingers to dismiss Snopes in future (when I used it in past, all they could do is vague complaints about liberal bias). In other words, what Snopes did here is harmful to themself, their reputation and counterproductive.

Seems like an odd hill for Snopes to pick to die on. There are a lot more significant questions to use.

It seems more to me that they are using their own published criteria, and some people are unhappy with that.

There isn't much use in worrying about those people's beliefs. Snopes isn't going to change them or what they already believe about Snopes' impartiality. They're going to dismiss Snopes regardless.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 11:22 AM   #93
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
So, you and I read the same Snopes piece. You feel that the "Unproven" label fits, I maybe say, "This seems more like a 'False' to me." Either way, we both have all the necessary information to draw a conclusion, because Snopes provides it. So why quibble over their final label?


Perhaps you should direct this question at the people who insisted that not labeling it "False" was tantamount to Snopes "Beclowning" themselves.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 12:09 PM   #94
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,558
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Perhaps you should direct this question at the people who insisted that not labeling it "False" was tantamount to Snopes "Beclowning" themselves.
Seems to me this question is directed at anyone who would care to respond, including those you have suggested Isis’s not single out. Why do you think it is necessary to direct it only to a small specific group?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 12:20 PM   #95
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Seems to me this question is directed at anyone who would care to respond, including those you have suggested Isis’s not single out. Why do you think it is necessary to direct it only to a small specific group?


Because he prefaces his question with "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference", in a thread started by someone who is insisting not only that it should be changed, but that it was literally clownish that it ever had the other label. The "Unproven" camp were not the ones going out of their way to get their panties in a twist over an obscure Snopes article. When you want to know why a fight started, it's usually most efficient to ask the person who threw the first punch.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2019, 01:33 PM   #96
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,175
I was directing my question at anyone who disagrees with the position I stated, which appears to include the OP. I was also sort of just directing it outward, because I have heard these nitpicky arguments about Snopes classifications before, and they annoy me.

The labels - True, False, Unproven - don't matter as much as the content (which tends to be very thorough). I guess it just makes people seem lazy to me when they complain about Snope-verdicts, because they have access to the evidence and can still draw their own conclusions. I think Snopes does a good job. I guess that wasn't clear from my post, sorry.

Also, not that it matters really, but I'm not a he.


ETA - Horatious, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the more I read your last post the more confused I get. Did you read my whole post or just the line "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference?" I think my post meant the opposite of what you got out of it (unless I'm confused, which is always possible). My question basically was directed at the OP, as well as anyone who holds his/her same position.

Last edited by isissxn; 21st September 2019 at 01:41 PM. Reason: clarity
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd September 2019, 02:37 PM   #97
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Also, not that it matters really, but I'm not a he.

My apologies.


Quote:
ETA - Horatious, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the more I read your last post the more confused I get. Did you read my whole post or just the line "I guess I don't understand why it makes such a difference?" I think my post meant the opposite of what you got out of it (unless I'm confused, which is always possible). My question basically was directed at the OP, as well as anyone who holds his/her same position.


Perhaps I misread your intent, but it felt like a "both sides do it" kind of argument, when it was clear that one side does it far more often than the other.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 03:39 AM   #98
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,782
A few observations....

The Claim is that Sanders paid Childress $1,200. It doesn't say when that was. WIkipedia says that Sanders was selling his chicken from 1930, based on recipes he learned as a child, but didn't come up with the franchised restaurant model until 1952. If Sanders paid Childress $1,200 it would have been a tidy sum; in 1952 less so. Even then, if he paid he, then by definition he did not "steal" anything. Plenty of people throughout history have sold an idea or a piece of work for a on-off fee that subsequently made the buyer millions or - in this case - billions.

The fact that the picture of "Children" was traced to a completely unconnected advert suggests embellishment that should haver edged Snopes to a more unequivocal "False," rather than sitting on the fence and trying to justify the bogus claim.

It is noted that Sanders may have drawn on one recipe, several, and/or further honed it himself, particularly as regards the cooking method in the franchising model. It would also seem unlikely that any preceding recipe was truly unique in itself, or devised solely by whoever he may have got it/them from.

But, you know, a simplistic "white guy steals black idea" dressed with an unconnected image seems to appeal to some people....
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 05:29 AM   #99
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The fact that the picture of "Children" was traced to a completely unconnected advert suggests embellishment that should haver edged Snopes to a more unequivocal "False," rather than sitting on the fence and trying to justify the bogus claim.
You, and others here, seem to be forgetting that the Category "False" is for claims that can be categorically proven to be False.

While there is certainly evidence that this particular case is not true, it is also not provable beyond all doubt that it actually is False, and thus it cannot be categorised as False.

Since it clearly also cannot be shown to be true either, then it by definition falls into the "Unproven" Category.

Many Historical myths for which there just isn't enough evidence to determine 100% Truth or Falsity are in the same boat.

Perhaps you all need to see Unproven as meaning, "It's probably not true, but we can't absolutely prove that, so we can't say it's False," instead of trying to claim that it means that they want it to be true, but can't prove it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 23rd September 2019 at 05:31 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 07:57 AM   #100
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,902
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Perhaps you all need to see Unproven as meaning, "It's probably not true, but we can't absolutely prove that, so we can't say it's False," instead of trying to claim that it means that they want it to be true, but can't prove it.
This.

True: Proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
False: Proven not to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Unproven: Failed to make the case that it happened, but we can't prove it didn't. In other words, there's no evidence for this.
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 09:37 AM   #101
ServiceSoon
Graduate Poster
 
ServiceSoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,494
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
This.

True: Proven to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
False: Proven not to be true beyond reasonable doubt.
Unproven: Failed to make the case that it happened, but we can't prove it didn't. In other words, there's no evidence for this.
Agreed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also unproven.

Russell's teapot...falsifiable..and all that.

Wouldn't invoking the burden of proof in this instance cause this story to be labeled false, without prejudice? They attempted to use the justification that, somebody somewhere stole a receipt, so this story could be true. That seems desperate to me.

I don't solely rely on snopes because I've found it to be slightly biased/slanted.
ServiceSoon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:01 AM   #102
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
My apologies.






Perhaps I misread your intent, but it felt like a "both sides do it" kind of argument, when it was clear that one side does it far more often than the other.
Nah, looks like you misread my intent (not surprising, as I was kind of rambling). I have run into these kinds of complaints about Snopes verdicts before. I think quibbling with the verdict when all the supporting evidence is right there is a lame smear tactic. Snopes isn't hiding anything, and the only way a person could be misled by a verdict is if he/she also refused to read the full article where they explain their reaosning and the evidence they've gathered to support it.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:10 AM   #103
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
No, of course not. Everyone makes mistakes.

However, I feel like the criticisms leveled against Snopes in this thread are more properly aimed at reality’s infamous and well known liberal bias.
Is that actually a thing?

The reason I'm asking is that I was on the skeptic email list with Mikkelson for 20+ years (he withdrew from the list a few years ago), and 'liberal' is not a word I'd use to describe him.

He's literally a card carrying Libertarian, and I've found him to be more fact oriented and unbiased/nonpartisan than most people I've ever met.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:23 AM   #104
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,283
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Is that actually a thing?

The reason I'm asking is that I was on the skeptic email list with Mikkelson for 20+ years (he withdrew from the list a few years ago), and 'liberal' is not a word I'd use to describe him.

He's literally a card carrying Libertarian, and I've found him to be more fact oriented and unbiased/nonpartisan than most people I've ever met.
Upchurch is not referring to Mikkelson so much as reality, which stems from the old Colbert joke about "Reality has a known Liberal bias".

But yeah, a lot of folks really assume that Mikkelson is some card-carrying socialist because he debunks that meme grandma forwarded about Antifa conquering all of Brooklyn.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 10:34 AM   #105
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,783
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Recipes are often protected trade secrets. As such they can be stolen, bought, sold, and much litigation money can be made from them. See: Coca-Cola.
This is my understanding as well. Recipes qualify as trade secrets (Coke being a famous example, but there are millions of others, my own example follows) - obtaining a trade secret without permission is a crime in the USA. It's covered by the Corporate Espionage Act.

Licensing is another way to steal: I came across this when working for Trader Vic's. The Mai Tai recipe is a trade secret. Licensing pricing was tiered in proportion to sales volumes. If a business licensed 1M sales, but sold 2M units, they were essentially stealing the surplus 1M and would be sued for breach of contract.

SO, with those two scenarios in mind... the urban legend isn't clear as to exactly HOW Sanders would have obtained the recipe, and whether Childress was operating a business with the recipe in the first place. Did she share it in confidence? Did she license it to him? Did she publish it? Did he reverse engineer it?

The pressure cooker technology discussion is a distraction from the actual claim. It doesn't matter whether KFC thrived or failed, he either did or didn't steal the recipe.

To that end, there just isn't enough information, but it's not implausible. I agree with the 'unproven' verdict and believe the historical context is relevant to the analysis.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2019, 09:30 PM   #106
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Wouldn't invoking the burden of proof in this instance cause this story to be labeled false, without prejudice? They attempted to use the justification that, somebody somewhere stole a receipt, so this story could be true. That seems desperate to me.
Did you bother to read the thread, this has only be explained four times so far.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 12:44 AM   #107
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,782
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You, and others here, seem to be forgetting that the Category "False" is for claims that can be categorically proven to be False.
On the contrary, I believe use of the fake image, the lack of any evidence that "Childress" even existed, and the actual timeline of Sanders's business is enough to show that the claim is false. No element of the claim can be proved to be true. We are clearly in the territory of someone somewhere simply making something up, so Snopes saying, "we can't disprove it," makes them look like fools. Saying, "Hey, Sanders could have obtained the recipe from some unknown black women," is a cop-out for not properly condemning an obvious fabrication.

Whatever next? Snopes declares the plot of The Eagle Has Landed "unproven," because they can't find any evidence that it didn't happen?

Last edited by Information Analyst; 24th September 2019 at 12:54 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:22 AM   #108
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,769
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Upchurch is not referring to Mikkelson so much as reality, which stems from the old Colbert joke about "Reality has a known Liberal bias".
Which, itself, is based on a swath of conservative positions that are counter to reality.
  • Intelligent design is a thing
  • Global climate change isn’t a thing
  • War on Christmas
  • Trickle-down economics
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:25 AM   #109
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
On the contrary, I believe use of the fake image, the lack of any evidence that "Childress" even existed, and the actual timeline of Sanders's business is enough to show that the claim is false.
Except that none of these things conclusively prove it is false, they merely are evidence that it could be. A fake image means nothing other than that no image exists or if one does, that no one had access to it. The lack of evidence for a person's existence is not proof that they didn't exist, only that they lived an unremarkable life that was not noteworthy enough to leave a record. As for the timeline, he had 38 years to get the recipe between learning to cook and introducing it in his cafe. Again it doesn't disprove that he got the combination of herbs and spices from someone else.

Quote:
No element of the claim can be proved to be true.
You still seem to be having a problem between "unable to be proven true", and "unable to be proven false".

Just because something cannot be proven to be true, doesn't make it false. Consider trying to prove what you ate for Breakfast last Friday. Unless you were lucky enough to go out and keep the receipt or happened to film yourself eating it, how exactly would you go about proving the truth of it?

Quote:
We are clearly in the territory of someone somewhere simply making something up, so Snopes saying, "we can't disprove it," makes them look like fools.
I disagree, they make it clear that they have been unable to prove any of it as true, but also they can't provide evidence that totally disproves the claim either. The correct stance is at that point to say it is Unproven.

Quote:
Saying, "Hey, Sanders could have obtained the recipe from some unknown black women," is a cop-out for not properly condemning an obvious fabrication.
No, your claim of it being "an obvious fabrication" is jumping to a conclusion that the evidence does not support. You are making an assumption based on your views on the evidence, not based on what the evidence itself is. Snopes does its best not to jump to a conclusion it is unable to fully support. Blasting someone for refusing to make the same jumps, and weighing the evidence the same way that you did is very poor skepticism.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 24th September 2019 at 04:36 AM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:41 AM   #110
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,194
This is getting a little pedantic, isn't it? There's no proof that I didn't travel back in time and sell the recipe to Col. Sanders myself, either. Does that mean snopes should list this claim as unverified? I thought we as skeptics say the burden of proof is on the claimant? If there's no proof of the claim, that should be good enough to consider it false unless and until some such proof comes to light.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:52 AM   #111
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
There's no proof that I didn't travel back in time and sell the recipe to Col. Sanders myself, either.
I'd say that claim is unproven, and you need to go away and come back with some better evidence before I say it is true.

Do you see anything wrong with that?
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 05:05 AM   #112
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,750
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
This is getting a little pedantic, isn't it? There's no proof that I didn't travel back in time and sell the recipe to Col. Sanders myself, either. Does that mean snopes should list this claim as unverified? I thought we as skeptics say the burden of proof is on the claimant? If there's no proof of the claim, that should be good enough to consider it false unless and until some such proof comes to light.
Actually no, a claim shouldn't be considered False unless that there is clear evidence that it is, it shown be considered unproven and demands for more prove be made before concluding one way or the other.

For instance, let's take your claim. While I suspect that you don't have access to either the recipe, or time travel, I can't know beyond a doubt that you don't have such access. Thus I can't declare that your statement is False, even if I don't believe it and think it is likely to be false.

What I can do is say that your claim is unproven and demand that you provide evidence that you have access to both the recipe and time travel, and should you refuse to do so, then I can dismiss your claim as unproven.

I still can't call it False without either conclusive proof that you don't have access to the recipe or time travel, or conclusive proof that time travel is impossible.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 05:23 AM   #113
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,194
I certainly see your point, and I have no real issue with Snopes. I'm just having a slow day at work. That being said, in the spirit of continuing the discussion, how can this article about AG Barr visiting Epstein's prison be considered "false" rather than unproven if it's the prison themselves saying he did not visit? That doesn't seem any different than KFC saying the Col. did in fact come up with the recipe himself. The only other evidence they offer that I can see is that Barr has 24/7 FBI detail. It does NOT say anything about members of his FBI detail saying he didn't visit the prison.

FWIW I only picked this story because it was the only one fitting the narrative. Most of the false claims seem to have rock-solid evidence of them actually being false (such as a photoshopped picture). I do not think Barr visited the prison and I'm not looking for a derail.

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-barr-visit/
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 06:09 AM   #114
Wudang
BOFH
 
Wudang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire
Posts: 11,990
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC;12830702 That being said, in the spirit of continuing the discussion, how can this article about AG Barr visiting Epstein's prison be considered "false" rather than unproven if it's the prison themselves saying he did not visit? That doesn't seem any different than KFC saying the Col. did in fact come up with the recipe himself.
[url
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-barr-visit/[/url]
Don't prisons usually keep a record of who visitted whom?
__________________
"Your deepest pools, like your deepest politicians and philosophers, often turn out more shallow than expected." Walter Scott.
Wudang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 06:21 AM   #115
Information Analyst
Philosopher
 
Information Analyst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure...
Posts: 9,782
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Except that none of these things conclusively prove it is false, they merely are evidence that it could be. A fake image means nothing other than that no image exists or if one does, that no one had access to it. The lack of evidence for a person's existence is not proof that they didn't exist, only that they lived an unremarkable life that was not noteworthy enough to leave a record. As for the timeline, he had 38 years to get the recipe between learning to cook and introducing it in his cafe. Again it doesn't disprove that he got the combination of herbs and spices from someone else.

You still seem to be having a problem between "unable to be proven true", and "unable to be proven false".

Just because something cannot be proven to be true, doesn't make it false. Consider trying to prove what you ate for Breakfast last Friday. Unless you were lucky enough to go out and keep the receipt or happened to film yourself eating it, how exactly would you go about proving the truth of it?

I disagree, they make it clear that they have been unable to prove any of it as true, but also they can't provide evidence that totally disproves the claim either. The correct stance is at that point to say it is Unproven.

No, your claim of it being "an obvious fabrication" is jumping to a conclusion that the evidence does not support. You are making an assumption based on your views on the evidence, not based on what the evidence itself is. Snopes does its best not to jump to a conclusion it is unable to fully support. Blasting someone for refusing to make the same jumps, and weighing the evidence the same way that you did is very poor skepticism.
The bottom line:

"Mrs/Miss Childress" - no evidence she existed
Image - fake, from unconnected advertisement
Sanders "stole" (or bought) recipe <=1930 - no evidence

Literally no element of the fake story is supportable, therefore the whole thing is a fabrication, pure and simple.

Last edited by Information Analyst; 24th September 2019 at 06:24 AM.
Information Analyst is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 06:31 AM   #116
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by Wudang View Post
Don't prisons usually keep a record of who visitted whom?
But that goes back to my point-why is it okay to take the prison's word for it, but not KFC's? Aren't both a conflict of interest, as they both directly "benefited" from telling a lie? (Again, not saying KFC OR the prison are lying.)
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 08:38 AM   #117
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by ServiceSoon View Post
Agreed. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is also unproven.

Russell's teapot...falsifiable..and all that.

Wouldn't invoking the burden of proof in this instance cause this story to be labeled false, without prejudice? They attempted to use the justification that, somebody somewhere stole a receipt, so this story could be true. That seems desperate to me.
Do they call any other claims for which there is absolutely no evidence either way false? If they treat all such claims the same what is your complaint?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 08:46 AM   #118
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,588
The Barr story, if true, would be hard to hide. So we would expect some evidence of it actually happening if it were true. Since there isn't any, it is safe to conclude that story is false.

If it were true that Colonel Sanders "stole" the recipe from a black woman (the gist of the story) it is not as likely that we would be able to find good evidence of it happening. So the lack of good evidence is not enough to label the story as false. Therefore, labelling it as "Unproven" makes sense.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 08:48 AM   #119
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,869
Originally Posted by DuvalHMFIC View Post
I certainly see your point, and I have no real issue with Snopes. I'm just having a slow day at work. That being said, in the spirit of continuing the discussion, how can this article about AG Barr visiting Epstein's prison be considered "false" rather than unproven if it's the prison themselves saying he did not visit? That doesn't seem any different than KFC saying the Col. did in fact come up with the recipe himself. The only other evidence they offer that I can see is that Barr has 24/7 FBI detail. It does NOT say anything about members of his FBI detail saying he didn't visit the prison.

FWIW I only picked this story because it was the only one fitting the narrative. Most of the false claims seem to have rock-solid evidence of them actually being false (such as a photoshopped picture). I do not think Barr visited the prison and I'm not looking for a derail.

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/epstein-barr-visit/
The AG visiting a prison under his authority wouldn't generate any kind of record, paper trail or selfies with the boss? Also it is likely not too hard to build a timeline of his events during that time period.

This is something that if it happened would leave a record and so the absence of the record is meaningful. No lets look at someone putting a "washington slept here" sign up, if the building is old enough how are you to prove one way of the other that it didn't happen if it was known he was in the area for a period of time? Disproving that would be very hard, though proving it though say washington's correspondence would be trivial. In the absence of either how do you evaluate the claim?

Is it being true or false without evidence liberal or conservative?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 08:56 AM   #120
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,126
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
The bottom line:

"Mrs/Miss Childress" - no evidence she existed
Image - fake, from unconnected advertisement
Sanders "stole" (or bought) recipe <=1930 - no evidence

Literally no element of the fake story is supportable, therefore the whole thing is a fabrication, pure and simple.
To me the difference between "False" and "Unproven" is whether additional information would change the determination. If a family showed up with a receipt and a letter from Col Sanders that was authenticated and largely confirmed their story, that would change things.

That is not true for fake photos that are labeled as False where they have actually identified at least one of the source photos. There is no possibility of additional information changing the determination. Even if someone sent in negatives and sworn statements it would not be enough to prove the authenticity of the photo. Even if they sent in similar photos it would not change the verdict on that particular photo. They have proven it false.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:36 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.