"disinterested" sources

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Hi Group!
  For Jason Carters benefit I thought I would mention by what is meant
"disinterested" sources.
A "disinterested" source is generally one written by an author with nothing to
gain *or* lose by mentioning a fact in question. Sometimes it isn't hard to see
whether a writer has something to gain or lose by admitting a fact or making a
claim. However, sometimes it may be a little more difficult to make such a
judgement. Then, there are times it is easy to see the writer is writing about
something he has no vested interest in. He writes with little or no passion,
deals with the subject as quickly as possible, and leaves it up to the reader to
draw his own conclusions as he seems to take no solid position one way or the
other. All inerrantists are admittedly biased as are all skeptics. But the
question is this: Is your bias the result of study and evidence? If it is, then
your bias is reasonable. Are you able to defend your biases? That is what this
list is for. You should stop using the word "biased" as an ad hominem. You must
show why being biased is unreasonable if it is the result of study.
Dave

• Previous message: I'm just a lurker
• Next message: "disinterested" sources
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]