Claims made without evidence are essentially just entertainment. Can we all agree on that?
I’ve been attempting to log and track the various claims being made on my site, but I’ve encountered a significant challenge—there’s no effective way to monitor them.
Most claims cannot be resolved without full disclosure, rendering them largely meaningless. Many are vague or open-ended and can easily be altered if deadlines pass. Some claims are said to have evidence that hasn’t been presented, or the evidence simply hasn’t been collected for various reasons. What results is a cycle of arguments between prominent figures, such as “Aliens are dangerous!” “No, they’re not!” or debates about a potential false flag alien invasion.
There’s a lot of pseudo-academic discourse happening here, which is concerning. Regardless of whether you believe in this phenomenon, can we agree that most of the conversations taking place are neither genuine journalism nor academic in nature?
I completely understand where you’re coming from. The prevalence of claims without solid evidence does indeed create a landscape that resembles more of a sensationalized entertainment arena than serious discourse. It’s frustrating to see discussions bogged down by vague assertions and competing narratives that often lack the accountability and rigor expected in both journalism and academia.
When it comes to tracking claims, the challenge lies in the inconsistency of the evidence provided, which, as you pointed out, often leads to circular arguments without resolution. This can dilute meaningful conversations and hinder any potential for constructive debate.
You’re right that many discussions around these topics can veer into pseudoacademic territory, especially when they lack credible sources or empirical backing. It’s crucial for us to establish standards for discourse that prioritize clarity and verifiability, regardless of whether the subject matter leans toward the fantastical or the scientific.
Engaging critically with claims is essential, and fostering an environment that values evidence over sensationalism can elevate the conversation and lead us to more nuanced understandings, regardless of personal beliefs about the phenomenon in question.