[–] Are_we__sure 4 points -3 points 1 point (+1|-4) ago
Anomaly hunting is used to shift the frame of the debate.
What is the question we are trying to answer. Did the FBI get the right guy? Did this guy send the bombs? Those seem to be the big picture questions.
Instead the question is shifted to How come this guys stickers aren't faded in the Florida sun? As if that answers the question of is this the guy. The conditions of his stickers don't answer that question whatsoever.
It's a way of handling the cognitive dissonance of this guy seems to a big Trump supporter like me or this guy uses some of the same memes I use. Rather than examine what that means, let's shift it to measuring stickers in sunlight.
[–] WhiteRonin 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I can see your point but consider that new stickers versus faded one are a way of showing that the evidence isn’t lining up and thus why I commented.
Sure some people are looking at details but in general it’s just to prove this is crap.
[–] Are_we__sure ago
That's the definition of anomaly hunting. You have already come to a conclusion before looking at the facts, so you start looking for things to prove this is crap. You start looking for details that are hard to explain or can knock.the other side off its feet.
You're examining evidence in order to confirm your belief, not get at the truth. That's a really common one. Confirmation bias can occur without you known ng your doing it.