If it's by an accredited scholar and/or published by a peer-reviewed academic press, that's the safest bet.https://twitter.com/Chuck_Morgan3/status/1116691894271193088 …
Show this thread
-
I was using a simplification for limited space. You lost me at the term "triangulate". Far too political word for me and raises a red flag to your opinion. The res I agree. Some history take more investigation. But most credible is seeking 1st src.
"Triangulate" is a mathematical term, not a political one. "Most credible is seeking 1st src" is wrong. Sorry. Most credible is looking at the big picture, which includes, but is not limited to, primary sources. More credible is talking to many experts who do this for a living.
-
-
I know but it sends red flags up for me cause I don't see the application for writing. To me that's lingo a leftist uses (not accusing) just being honest.
-
OK, for a "bias pundit" you seem to have some ridiculous biases yourself. If you can't actually talk to an expert without objecting to totally standard technical language, then what are the odds you're going to be able to actually ferret out bias? Seriously.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
PS No, 1st source is more credible. Your opinion is to see the whole forest wher as mine is to walk into the forest & study every tree in the forest. Have a good day!
-
There is a saying (with equivalents in many languages): "you can't see the forest for the trees". If you want true knowledge, you have to use several point of views. To see trees and forest.
-
Congratulations! That's EXACTLY what I do. Guess whom is cite most? LEFTISTS. Best examples of #fakeHistory#fakeScience#fakeAmericanism there is. -
Yeah... ok. Enjoy being ignorant! Hope it works out for ya. Muting.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.