Quote:
|
Originally Posted by youngunz4life
...
Quote:
Why? What if the reporter didn't know at the time? What if all that came after the story was written? What if the reporter wasn't really all that good.
Every time a news article critical of gun ownership, or including things about guns we know to be inaccurate, is published, we complain bitterly about how ignorant, incompetent and/or biased reporters are and the media is. But if a news article says something we like, it's suddenly gospel.
|
I thought you said we needed to "stick with what we know" in your post31 when you corrected me? I did make an edit in the post25 you were speaking about due to my typing error and mentioned it in a later post.
Quote:
|
Which means what, exactly? The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen. The fact that something isn't mentioned in an article doesn't mean it didn't happen until after the article was published.
|
you were responding to barstool. I don't necessarily disagree with your points, and the first part I mentioned above about posts #25&31 is neither here nor there, but barstool has a good point. There are no behind the scenes chatter, investigation, Anything going on about anything she did wrong...no verbal warnings, nothing. He does have a point that something like that would probably be mentioned..... |
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. One can not simply draw an inference from the fact that something isn't mentioned in a news article that it didn't happen. All you can know is that it wasn't mentioned.
That may be sufficient to form a hypothesis. But a hypothesis needs to be tested.
You would do well to understand the difference among a fact, an hypothesis, a suspicion and a wild guess.