The first standard for evaluating a source is assessing the qualifications of that source. The second one is assessing the possibility of prejudicial bias.For the moment, let's not look at whether or not this is the first standard. Let's set aside that, despite Prancer's topic sentence, there is no consensus about what the first standard may be (There isn't. I did a lot of googling about it.). Let's set aside the notion that "qualifications" will determine the validity of someone's opinion, apparently sans context, and while discounting primary evidence available to all.
Immediately what comes to mind is "how does one assess the qualifications of that source"? If one is unfamiliar or insufficiently informed on the subject/issue/whatever, how does one evaluate? And by "qualifications" does she mean "credentials"?
A bunch of credentials appended to somebody's name doesn't tell us anything in itself - otherwise, every verdict at every trial would be prompted by "expert" testimony, and there would be no way that the prosecution could produce an "expert" who contradicted the defense's "expert."
"The second one is assessing the possibility of prejudicial bias." Alrighty. How does one assess that? Is it easier to assess if the expert's prejudicial bias conforms with your own? When that's the case, clearly there is no prejudicial bias.
Christ on a cracker. We're talking ice dance. In ice dance, there is a rule book. Anybody literate can read it and understand that words stand for things, and therefore, see for themselves what the rules mean.Then, anyone who is not vision impaired, and with the rules in mind, can go see the skating and see if the skaters are doing what the rulebook says should be done.
With DW, we're not talking qualitative or quantitative subtleties.
Prancer continues to post about figure skating as if it's an unsee-able, arcane, untranslatable discipline that one can only understand via specially trained emissaries who cross the great divide, break down the secret code, and report back to the hoi polloi. The task becomes, can we trust these emissaries.
Jesus fucking Christ Prancer. You're an academic. Read the rulebook. Look at the skating. And don't be a dumbass.You're coming off like Matthew Broderick in the Cooter episode of 30 Rock.
From a fansite about the Cooter episode:
Cooter insists the roof isn't leaking, when it obviously is, even offering to show Jack the study that shows it. Then he insists there is no recession even though the office doesn't even have pens.Cooter insists the roof isn't leaking because the study says it's not. Cooter insists there's no recession despite not having basic supplies because headquarters says there is no recession.
Prancer? You know how we assess the qualifications of those who wrote the study? By noticing the study says the roof isn't leaking while the roof is leaking.
See? No need to even muster up the fee for a database searching the credentials of those who produced the study.
The comedic/farce component of this 30 Rock episode is any moron can see for themselves that the roof is leaking.You don't need a freaking source.You just need to understand, for yourself, what a leaking roof is.
Prancer.The roof is leaking.
I did some googling with the search phrase: "What is the first standard for evaluating sources."
I got CUNY's web page (City University Of New York) which says:
The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.Well, Prancer is self-admittedly lacking an evaluative criteria she failed to mention - a knowledge base. OTOH, she might have a value system, a value system which informs her that she prefers DW - or at least is irritated by the fans of Virtue Moir. The real problem here is pseudo rationality. Not to mention that one's "value system" can actually mean the bias/prejudice resides in you, and in your evaluative conclusions, and not in the thing you're evaluating.
You know how it is. You actually need to use your own brains, your own powers of observation, and your own reasoning process, to work this stuff out. I realize that for some, this can be a pain in the ass.
P.S. I'm adding this quote from the Vassily Solovyov interview linked in the comments section below, because it is part of the persistent question asked on this blog:
The judging games. It is a mystery to me how ISU manipulates their scores. There are only two possible scenarios. Either they tell all nine judges and three technical specialists how to score people ahead of time. Or their scores are just neglected, and there is someone else sitting by the computer, clicking away. Because some things that happen in figure skating are just beyond belief for me.
Namely "Who" is "the ISU"?
There is no such thing as an animated, talking/communicating abstract entity. "They" have names. The ISU", to coin phrase, is people. Who are the individuals manipulating the scoring, who are the people who make sure that, for example, DW's scores stay ahead of VM no matter how DW skate (and no matter how VM skate), no matter what's in the rulebook. Even setting aside the corruption aspect of things, who are the deciders? Where does it start, and with whom, when VM "hear" something about an element that needs to change lest it negatively impact their scores/levels/is ruled illegal even after being competed legally?
Even Vassily Solovyov - he's not naming anybody. Yet. "The ISU" has to be a person/persons, with names, with identities.