Does thinking for yourself automatically dub you as a conspiracist?

[faye]

lol. he's really upset now....
sorry butthead, he who makes many fictitious claims and doesn't provide proof of his accusations, doesn't receive proof in return. karma, my dear bot, karma...

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Here is information from an Authentic Qualified source regarding American History

Foundations of American Government [ushistory.org]

Where did this democratic tradition truly begin? The ideas and practices that led to the development of the American democratic republic owe a debt to the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome, the PROTESTANT REFORMATION, and GUTENBERG's PRINTING PRESS. But the Enlightenment of 17th-century Europe had the most immediate impact on the framers of the United States Constitution.

This highlights that both Khushal and Khushal's source are both falsified

debunked

[RevolutionThroughReason]

lol. he's really upset now....
sorry butthead, he who makes many fictitious claims and doesn't provide proof of his accusations, doesn't receive proof in return. karma, my dear bot, karma...

So Basically you're admitting you fabricated this Got it ...

thus nothing you claim applies to me......the end.

[khushal]

yes there is nothing that explicitly says that American Government is based on Native Americans, this is this guy's speculation; it's an opinion piece and more over it's not even a SCHOLARLY paper.

is this better
Internet History Sourcebooks

[khushal]

Here is information from an Authentic Qualified source regarding American History

Foundations of American Government [ushistory.org]



This highlights that both Khushal and Khushal's source are both falsified

debunked

you also have to provide proof. where in 17th century europe was the three branches of government practiced. We have to look at this with intellectual honesty. We know the native americans practiced it long before chris columbus came to the americas.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

is this better
Internet History Sourcebooks

No

Prepared by Gerald Murphy (The Cleveland Free-Net - aa300) Distributed by the Cybercasting Services Division of the National Public Telecomputing Network (NPTN).

Permission is hereby granted to download, reprint, and/or otherwise redistribute this file, provided appropriate point of origin credit is given to the preparer(s) and the National Public Telecomputing Network.

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

Fordham is just hosting the article not claiming this is historical fact.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

you also have to provide proof. where in 17th century europe was the three branches of government practiced. We have to look at this with intellectual honesty. We know the native americans practiced it long before chris columbus came to the americas.

I'm saying that's where it's rooted in. That's the cultural setting it came from, and that's what this shows.

[faye]

No
Fordham is just hosting the article not claiming this is historical fact.

prove that your source is the only valid one.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Haha I never "claimed" it's the "only" valid one. I claimed it's an authentic one.

I don't need to "prove" something I never argued.

[یاسمینه]

Yes

2.) You still have not demonstrated what was wrong with the methodology. The Methodological Assessment is in the beginning if you care to demonstrate the error behind it. And even then, how severe the error is when it comes to diverting from accuracy is also important.

3.) Well since you have some experience in studying the veracity of research techniques I'd like to see a replete assessment if you have the time.

p.s. I still failing to see what is erroneous here, you haven't explained much. The study refers to the widespread culturally enshrined practice. Whether you agree or disagree, the evidence of its widespread cultural acceptance is undeniable. The Study just gives a concise description for it.

Before turning to the merits, I want to emphasize that I am not going to convince you to anything. I will write my opinion, then you could agree or not, you could think it is less or more logical etc.

I also didn't read the whole article, apart from Methodology part, and I am not going to read it.

I could treat this article as I treat other informations from newspeapers or random books, ie. everyone can write what he wants. For sure I wouldn't dare to quote this article anywhere or take it as a result of a serious scientific approach.
1. HTT involved many well-known scholars in their projects. None of them signed this project. In fact I can't see any author of it. Also, the sentence "Extensive open-source journalistic and academic writings on the subject have been additionallyconsulted, some involving directly quoted answers from Pashtun interviewees. References are included for further examination" without list of consultants undermines the ceredibility of the project. And as you know, bibliography has nothing to do with the list of consultants.


2. Authors write which methods were not applied. But they do not state what they exactly did. Normally, even if run qualitative studies, studies have some frames, clearly described in methodology.
- place of interviews, ie. villages x, y, z or province of X...
- selection of informants. Were they random people who agreed to talk, or there was a key to choose them, how many didn't want to talk... every trial should be described; age of informants, how many stories were collected.
- when interviews were collected, like month and year.
- language - was the stories collected in Pashto? Who collected and translated them into English etc.
- I also did not find any information saying what was done with the stories. How they were analyzed and by who. This is crucial. Lack of direct references to the bibliography is a serious error (in this was only recognized scholars can write).

You can treat it as a sociological study, a source of reliable information and it is nothing wrong with it. I don't treat the writting it this way. This is one of many differences between us

[khushal]

No



Fordham is just hosting the article not claiming this is historical fact.

If they are teaching it then they are.

[khushal]

I'm saying that's where it's rooted in. That's the cultural setting it came from, and that's what this shows.

nope, it was me claiming the idea behind the three branches of government came from the native americans since you cant provide evidence that it was practiced in 17th century europe and I just provided evidence that the Native americans were practicing such governance, you source is faulty and has errors.

[faye]

Haha I never "claimed" it's the "only" valid one. I claimed it's an authentic one.
I don't need to "prove" something I never argued.

playing pedantic now

thesaurus:

Main Entry: VALID  [val-id] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: right, genuine
Synonyms: accurate, attested, AUTHENTIC, authoritative, binding, bona fide, cogent, compelling, conclusive, confirmed, convincing, credible, determinative, efficacious, efficient, good, in force, irrefutable, just, kosher*, lawful, legal, legit, legitimate, logical, official, original, persuasive, potent, powerful, proven, pure, solid, sound, stringent, strong, substantial, telling, tested, true, trustworthy, ultimate, unadulterated, unanswerable, uncorrupted, weigh

[یاسمینه]

Faye,I am not going to go between you and RTR, but linguists still discuss if, from semantic point of view, synonyms exist.

[faye]

tell the producers of the thesaurus.
linguists can discuss what they want. right now they are considered VALID from what i can see.