Posted by walter on July 3, 2009, 15:29:02, in reply to "less credibility "
"Sorry Walter, but the number of sources used is irrelevant, unless it can be shown that it limits the count, for the reasons discussed. This is surely obvious, unless you're trying to miss the point and find something negative to say about IBC."
Something is “irrelevant” unless it can be “shown” not to be. And this is “obvious” except for those deliberately missing the “point” in order to smear IBC. Hmm..
Has it been “shown” that twenty sources is adequate? Assuming not, then why is IBC given the benefit of this ‘uncertainty’ ? To claim all the doubt for one side with such certainty, seems a touch nihilist to me, Raoul.
Just to expand on the credibility issue, even someone with no prior anti-IBC agenda ought to be able to see that most people would find 90 sources more impressive than 20 sources. Therefore if discussing credibility (a subjective entity), surely it is reasonable to point out that IBC give a misleading account of their comprehensive range of sources - whether or not it is the case that the typical 20 are just as good.
Indeed, even if it is the case that the typical 20 are just as good, you would then have to ask why then it is IBC who emphasize the 90 and not the 20, and also why it is you (and not they) who are arguing the case for the adequacy of the 20 mostly used. By your logic then, you could be said to be finding something positive to say about IBC?
Similarly, in your thinking Raoul, IBC also benefits from favourable interpretation – if 20 sources is automatcally to be assumed as good as the implied 90, especially if those in the know are to be discouraged from even pointing out what would be regarded as a salient fact, without ‘proof’.
Walter
Message Thread:
« Back to thread