Credible Sources For Quotes

You were perfect then, too, and you are perfect now.” Eyes watery, I laugh. “You are not a credible source.” “I am the only credible source. I’ve known you every second of your life.

What happened to the justice system and law when accusations and rumors are believed as truth instead of being proven with evidence? Rumors from sources, paid or bribed by rivals, are as much as lies when not backed up with credible evidence. - Kailin Gow, The New Justice

You wouldn't like me when I'm angry...Because I always back up my rage with facts and documented sources.

For many people the war begins at home: Each year about three million children in the United States are reported as victims of child abuse and neglect. One million of these cases are serious and credible enough to force local child protective services or the courts to take action.12 In other words, for every soldier who serves in a war zone abroad, there are ten children who are endangered in their own homes. This is particularly tragic, since it is very difficult for growing children to recover when the source of terror and pain is not enemy combatants but their own caretakers.

The No. 1 most credible source of [online] recommendations is YouTube,” Rand says. “But a friend liking a brand page and sharing that is now considered the second-most prominent form of recommendation, and third is online brand reviews.

There is a saturation of books on Amazon due to a sudden get-rich-quick surge in "everyone can be authors" seminars similar to the house flipping ones in the early 2000s which led to the housing bubble and an economic slowdown in the U.S. To distinguish quality books from those get-rich-quick ones, look at the author's track record - worldwide recognition as books that garnered credible awards, authors who speak at book industry events, authors who speak at schools, authors whose books are reference materials and reading sources at school and libraries. Get-rich books have a system to get over 500 reviews quickly, manipulates the Kindle Unlimited algorithm, and encourage collusion in the marketplace to knock out rivals. Be wary of trolls who are utilized to knock down the rankings of rival's books too. Once people have heard there is money to be made as a self-published author, just like house flipping, a cottage industry has risen to take advantage of it and turn book publishing into a get rich scheme, which is a shame for all the book publishers and authors, like me, who had published for the love of books, to write to help society, and for the love of literature. Kailin Gow, Parents and Books

Each religion makes scores of purportedly factual assertions about everything from the creation of the universe to the afterlife. But on what grounds can believers presume to know that these assertions are true? The reasons they give are various, but the ultimate justification for most religious people’s beliefs is a simple one: we believe what we believe because our holy scriptures say so. But how, then, do we know that our holy scriptures are factually accurate? Because the scriptures themselves say so. Theologians specialize in weaving elaborate webs of verbiage to avoid saying anything quite so bluntly, but this gem of circular reasoning really is the epistemological bottom line on which all 'faith' is grounded. In the words of Pope John Paul II: 'By the authority of his absolute transcendence, God who makes himself known is also the source of the credibility of what he reveals.' It goes without saying that this begs the question of whether the texts at issue really were authored or inspired by God, and on what grounds one knows this. 'Faith' is not in fact a rejection of reason, but simply a lazy acceptance of bad reasons. 'Faith' is the pseudo-justification that some people trot out when they want to make claims without the necessary evidence. But of course we never apply these lax standards of evidence to the claims made in the other fellow’s holy scriptures: when it comes to religions other than one’s own, religious people are as rational as everyone else. Only our own religion, whatever it may be, seems to merit some special dispensation from the general standards of evidence. And here, it seems to me, is the crux of the conflict between religion and science. Not the religious rejection of specific scientific theories (be it heliocentrism in the 17th century or evolutionary biology today); over time most religions do find some way to make peace with well-established science. Rather, the scientific worldview and the religious worldview come into conflict over a far more fundamental question: namely, what constitutes evidence. Science relies on publicly reproducible sense experience (that is, experiments and observations) combined with rational reflection on those empirical observations. Religious people acknowledge the validity of that method, but then claim to be in the possession of additional methods for obtaining reliable knowledge of factual matters — methods that go beyond the mere assessment of empirical evidence — such as intuition, revelation, or the reliance on sacred texts. But the trouble is this: What good reason do we have to believe that such methods work, in the sense of steering us systematically (even if not invariably) towards true beliefs rather than towards false ones? At least in the domains where we have been able to test these methods — astronomy, geology and history, for instance — they have not proven terribly reliable. Why should we expect them to work any better when we apply them to problems that are even more difficult, such as the fundamental nature of the universe? Last but not least, these non-empirical methods suffer from an insuperable logical problem: What should we do when different people’s intuitions or revelations conflict? How can we know which of the many purportedly sacred texts — whose assertions frequently contradict one another — are in fact sacred?

In our world of fake news…this world in which the internet has eroded the credibility of all information…people want to know the context of a story just as much as they want to hear the story itself. Context and source are more important now than they’ve ever been.

Prior to Y.P.W.c.’s Freedom of Speculation Act, credible sociohistorical data on the origins and evolution of Les Assassins des Fauteuils Rollents from obscure, adolescent, nihilistic Root Cult to one of the most feared cells in the annals of Canadian extremism was regrettably patchy and dependent on the hearsay of sources whose scholarly veracity was of an integrity somewhat less than unimpeachable.

Therefore, any knowledge that stems from an untrustworthy source gains credibility over time. The discrediting force melts away faster than the message does.

Receive wisdom skillfully. Try it on for size and see how it fits. Incorporate what’s useful. Let go of the rest. And no matter how credible the source, test and tune in to yourself to discover what works for you.

Random conversations about brands are now more credible than targeted advertising campaigns. Social circles have become the main source of influence, overtaking external marketing communications and even personal preference. Customers tend to follow the lead of their peers when deciding which brand to choose. It is as if customers were protecting themselves from false brand claims and campaign trickeries by using their social circles to build a fortress.

In the FISA warrant application to spy on Page, the FBI knew, early on, that Steele was not a credible source. They learned that his assignment from Fusion GPS was purely for political reasons to damage Trump. They also learned that his efforts were funded by Trump’s election opponent, Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. This alone should have been enough for the FBI to disregard Steele and discard his “dossier” as lacking reliability as the law demands.

I whispered, “am I really seeing this?” “There are some philosophers who postulate that all experience is illusory,” he replied from his seat. “That we cannot trust what we see, as perception is fed to us via external sources, and cannot be intuited.” He looked to me, then smiled. “I find such philosophies to be non-credible. It is real, Spin. What you experience is yours to cherish. Each sight a gemstone for your personal collection, light crystallized in your mind, made solid and captured to forever cherish.

The Fox News network, especially opinion broadcaster Sean Hannity, had a Svengali-like influence on Trump that Rosenstein privately labeled “malicious.” Too many right-wing nuts had influence. He also found no comfort or credibility with mainstream media reporters, who he believed were prisoners of their partisan sources.

But in my experience, there is one way to signal your commitment to process that all negotiations provide: Always keep your word, even when it is costly. The best deal makers and diplomats take very seriously the promises and commitments they have made to the other side on small things and big. This is not only the right thing to do; it is a tremendously powerful instrument in deal making. Especially in difficult, protracted conflicts where negotiating itself might be seen as risky or useless, often the only source of leverage you have for bringing the other side to the table is your credibility. And once you’re at the table, mistrust is often the biggest barrier to the give-and-take necessary for progress, because many of the concessions either side commits to are not deliverable right away—promises of equitable treatment, power sharing, future benefits, etc. are necessarily premised on trust. If you have not built up a reputation for credibility, you are ill-suited to negotiate such deals.

question this in the Blue Church is to out yourself as a heretic. Deviance from the myth, especially backed with science from credible sources, is prohibited. Even though Google asked for his feedback, they didn't really want it. His paper challenged the world view of those in charge and therefore it deserved only shame, ridicule, and a purge.

If you're anything like me, you don't make up your mind about important issues by doing original research, pounding over primary sources and coming to your own conclusions; you listen to people who claim to know what they're talking about - "experts" - and try to determine which of them is more credible. You do your best to gauge who's authentically well-informed and unbiased, who has an agenda and what it is - who's a corporate flack, a partisan hack, or a wacko. I believe that global warming is real and anthropogenic not because I've personally studied Antarctic ice core samples or run my own computer climate models, but because all the people who support the theory are climatologists with no evident investment in the issue, and all the people who dismiss it as alarmist claptrap are shills of the petro-chemical industry or just seem to like debunking things, from the Holocaust to the moon landing. We put our trust - our votes, our money, sometimes our lives - in someone else's authority. In other words, most of us decide not what to believe but whom to believe. And I say believe because for most people, such decisions are matters of faith rather than reason.

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as humanism gained increasing social credibility and political power, it sprouted two very different offshoots: socialist humanism, which encompassed a plethora of socialist and communist movements, and evolutionary humanism, whose most famous advocates were the Nazis. Both offshoots agreed with liberalism that human experience is the ultimate source of meaning and authority.

To the fundamentalist, their evidence in the form of religious doctrines and scriptures from various holy books must remain unchanged. This quashes the chance of empiricism and retards the intellectual growth of the mind. To the freethinker, our evidence is in the form of what exists in the real world, what can be verified by independent sources and what the community of like-minded individuals has solidified as acceptable methods of investigation that are based on credible, consistent techniques.

Sometimes when I’m all pretzeled up inside and my own crazy lady is nattering on, I’ll stop and wonder where she got her information. I’ll ask her to reveal her source. I’ll demand some proof. Did her notions come from actual facts based in reason or did she/I dredge them up from the hell pit that burns like a perpetual fire at the bottom of my needy, selfish, famished little soul? Is there credible evidence that my friends secretly don’t like me very much or were they all simply deep in conversation when I walked into the room and it took them a beat to say hello?

the Bagram conference, the idea was that Saleh and Kayani would exchange details about Al Qaeda and its allies. Detainees in N.D.S. custody had reported taking instructions in Mansehra, a mountain valley town in western Pakistan. Some even suggested Bin Laden might be hiding there. Saleh briefed Kayani on his intelligence. “Which house?” the Pakistani spy chief asked. “You’ll have to do the last one hundred yards yourself,” Saleh answered. “This is unbelievable,” Kayani said, meaning the N.D.S. reporting was not credible. Saleh said he would offer access to his source if Kayani agreed to work with the C.I.A. on the matter. “Are you telling me you are spying in my country?” “Yes.

I laid out my five expectations that first day [as FBI Director] and many times thereafter: I expected [FBI employees] would find joy in their work. They were part of an organization devoted to doing good, protecting the weak, rescuing the taken, and catching criminals. That was work with moral content. Doing it should be a source of great joy. I expected they would treat all people with respect and dignity, without regard to position or station in life. I expected they would protect the institution's reservoir of trust and credibility that makes possible all their work. I expected they would work hard, because they owe that to the taxpayer. I expected they would fight for balance in their lives. I emphasized that last one because I worried many people in the FBI worked too hard, driven by the mission, and absorbed too much stress from what they saw. I talked about what I had learned from a year of watching [a previous mentor]. I expected them to fight to keep a life, to fight for the balance of other interests, other activities, other people, outside of work. I explained that judgment was essential to the sound exercise of power. Because they would have great power to do good or, if they abused that power, to do harm, I needed sound judgment, which is the ability to orbit a problem and see it well, including through the eyes of people very different from you. I told them that although I wasn't sure where it came from, I knew the ability to exercise judgment was protected by getting away from the work and refreshing yourself. That physical distance made perspective possible when they returned to work. And then I got personal. "There are people in your lives called 'loved ones' because you are supposed to love them." In our work, I warned, there is a disease called "get-back-itis." That is, you may tell yourself, "I am trying to protect a country, so I will get back to" my spouse, my kids, my parents, my siblings, my friends. "There is no getting back," I said. "In this line of work, you will learn that bad things happen to good people. You will turn to get back and they will be gone. I order you to love somebody. It's the right thing to do, and it's also good for you.

My claims are not meant to be persuasive, but are used to make intangibility, concrete. I do not make claim for causing acts of God, I simply illustrate the coincidence and proximity of time between my words and acts of God and the exact date and time of said claims can never be changed because this data was recorded by International Press Releases. Being a scientist automatically makes me a reliable, objective and intellectual source but what gives me more credibility than the average scientist, is the fact that these claims are completely independent from myself for the fact they were recorded by an unbiased and independent third-party (i.e., The Library of Congress and PRLog.org). Therefore, there is no possible debate regarding the validity of this information, unless of course the debate is over whether the world is flat or round.

The heated public discourse about the frequency of false rape allegations often makes no reference to actual research. When the discourse does make reference to research, it often founders on the stunning variability in research findings on the frequency of false rape reports. A recently published comprehensive review of studies and reports on false rape allegations listed 20 sources whose estimates ranged from 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, when the sources of these estimates are examined carefully it is clear that only a fraction of the reports represent credible studies and that these credible studies indicate far less variability in false reporting rates." Lisak, D., Gardinier, L., Nicksa, S. C., & Cote, A. M. (2010). False allegations of sexual assualt: an analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence Against Women, 16(12), 1318-1334.

Source credibility is one contributing factor that seems to influence change. People have a tendency to look up to authority figures for knowledge and direction. Expert opinion is effective in establishing the legitimacy of change and is tied to information control. Once a source is accepted on one issue, another issue may be established as well on the basis of prior acceptance of the source. The analyst looks for an audience's perceived image of the source. How does the audience regard the source? Are the people deferential, and do they accept the message on the basis of leadership alone? Is the propaganda agent a hero? Does the audience model its behavior after the propagandist's? How does the propagandist establish identification with the audience? Does she or he establish familiarity with the audience's locality, use local incidents, and share interests, hopes, hatreds, and so on?

Billy Sol Estes, who died on May 14, 2013, rebuffed my many attempts to interview him. He had long stopped speaking publicly about the strange deaths or his knowledge of them, praying as he got older in years for a more spiritual solution to the murders. “I think there’s still a God in heaven, and I think that God will straighten history out,” Estes said. “I’ve decided that none of us can do it down here.”69 I did have access and the full cooperation of Billy Sol Estes’s personal attorney Douglas Caddy, who supplied interviews, source materials, and remembrances for this book. I can understand Estes’s reluctance to give interviews in his later years. By the time I asked him in 2012, he had already identified Lyndon Johnson as the ultimate perpetrator in the murder of President Kennedy and had implicated him in seven other murders on record, in interviews and with many credible media outlets. Both Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes were self-described wheeler dealers, operators, hustlers; both were in deep with Johnson, made money from his political influence, and eventually paid for it. Both overreached for personal gain, possibly believing that their leader could exonerate them. Johnson used them for his own wealth until they became a liability. Then, they were promptly cut off the tree and left to rot.

Brown-Séquard ground up the testes of domesticated animals (dogs and pigs are most often cited, but no two sources seem to quite agree on which animals he favored), injected the extract into himself, and reported feeling as frisky as a forty-year-old. In fact, any improvement he sensed was entirely psychological. Mammalian testes contain almost no testosterone because it is sent out into the body as quickly as it is made, and in any case we manufacture very little of it anyway. If Brown-Séquard ingested any testosterone at all, it was no more than a trace. Even though Brown-Séquard was completely wrong about the rejuvenative effects of testosterone, he was actually right that it is potent stuff—so much so that, when synthesized, it is treated today as a controlled substance. Brown-Séquard’s enthusiasm for testosterone seriously damaged his scientific credibility, and he died soon afterward anyway, but ironically his efforts prompted others to look more closely and systematically at the chemical processes that control our lives. In 1905, a decade after Brown-Séquard’s death, the British physiologist E. H. Starling coined the term “hormone” (on advice from a classics scholar at Cambridge University; it comes from a Greek word meaning “to set in motion”), though the science didn’t really get going until the following decade. The first journal devoted to endocrinology wasn’t founded until 1917, and the umbrella term for the ductless glands of the body, the endocrine system, came even later. It was coined in 1927 by the British scientist J. B. S. Haldane.

forgot about my huge goal. I focused on what I could control: what I did every day. After a little experimentation and a lot of thought, I settled on a process. Because the Internet never sleeps, here’s what I did every day: Write a new post. Without fail. No excuses. Build relationships. I contacted three people who tweeted my posts that day, choosing the three who seemed most influential, the most noteworthy, the most “something” (even if that “something” was just “thoughtful comment”). Then I sent an e-mail—not a tweet—and said thanks. My goal was to make a genuine connection. Build my network. I contacted one person who might be a great source for a future post. I aimed high: CEOs, founders, entrepreneur-celebrities . . . people with instant credibility and engaged followings. Many didn’t respond. But some did. And some have become friends and appear in this book. Add three more items to my “list of great headlines.” Headlines make or break posts: A great post with a terrible headline will not get read. So I worked hard to learn what worked for other people—and to adapt their techniques for my own use. Evaluate recent results. I looked at page views. I looked at shares and likes and tweets. I tried to figure out what readers responded to, what readers cared about. Writing for a big audience has little to do with pleasing yourself and everything to do with pleasing an audience, and the only way to know what worked was to know the audience. Ignore my editor. I liked my editor. But I didn’t want her input because she knew only what worked for columnists who were read by a maximum of 300,000 people each month. My goal was to triple that, which meant I needed to do things differently. We occasionally disagreed, and early on I lost some of those battles. Once my numbers started to climb, I won a lot more often, until eventually I was able to do my own thing. Sounds simple, right? In a way it was, because I followed a self-reinforcing process:

There’s my girl.” He tossed the rag to the hearth. “Now, cuddle up. Do you know, I think you put bruises on my arse, woman?” He stretched out on his side, right smack beside her. “You have slain me, Emmie Farnum.” He sighed happily and felt cautiously for her in the dark. His hand found her hair, which he smoothed back in a tender caress. “I badly needed slaying, too, I can tell you.” He bumped her cheek with his nose and pulled back abruptly. “I would have said you were in need of slaying, as well,” he said slowly, “but why the tears, Emmie, love?” There were women who cried in intimate circumstances, a trait he’d always found endearing, but they weren’t Emmie, and her cheek wasn’t damp. It was wet. “Did I hurt you?” he asked, pulling her over his body. He positioned her to straddle him and wrapped an arm around her even while his hand continued to explore her face. He thought he’d been careful, but at the end, he’d been ardent—or too rough? “Sweetheart.” He found her cheek with his lips. “I am so heartily sorry.” “For what?” she expostulated, sitting up on him. “I am the one who needs to apologize. Oh, God, help me, I was hoping you wouldn’t learn this of me, and I tried to tell you, but I couldn’t… I just…” She was working herself up to a state. Even in the dark, her voice alone testified to rising hysteria. “Emmie.” He leaned up and gathered her in his arms. “Emmie, hush.” But she couldn’t hush; she was sobbing and hiccupping and gulping in his arms, leaving him helpless to do more than hold her, murmur meaningless reassurances, and then finally, lay her gently on her side, climb out of bed, and fish his handkerchief out of his pockets. All the while though, he sorted through their encounter and seized upon a credible source of Emmie’s upset. “You were not a virgin,” he said evenly as he tucked the handkerchief into her hand and gathered her back over him. “I was n-n-not,” she said, seizing up again in misery. “And I h-h-hate to cry. But of course you know.” I do now, he thought with a small smile, though had he thought otherwise, he wouldn’t have been so willing to bed her—he hoped. “Cease your tears, Emmie love.” He tucked her closer. “I am sorry for your sake you are so upset, and I hope your previous liaisons were not painful, but as for me, I am far more interested in your future than your past.” A moment of silence went by, his hands tracing lazy patterns on her lovely back, and then she looked up at him. “You cannot mean that.” “I can,” he corrected her gently. “I know you were without anyone to protect you, and you were in service. One of my own sisters was damned near seduced by a footman, Emmie. It happens, and that’s the end of it. Has your heart been broken?” She nodded on a shuddery breath. “Shall I trounce him for you? Flirt with his wife?” “That won’t be necessary,” she said, her voice sounding a little less shaky.

In one analysis, Richard Doner, Bryan Ritchie and Dan Slater argue that for a regime to experience an ‘extraordinarily constrained political environment’ there must be three simultaneous conditions: the credible threat of mass unrest resulting from the deterioration of living standards; an increased need for military equipment and foreign exchange; and serious budget constraints resulting from insufficient exploitable sources of revenue.

Some researchers used to believe that people had different learning styles—that some people are right brain and some are left brain; some are auditory and some are visual learners. There’s almost no credible evidence to support this view. Instead,

As a lawyer, no. There are no grounds to arrest you. As a friend, yes. Absolutely. They can do anything. Should I leave? How credible is your source? Very. I think. Then you should leave. When? Right away. Vadim went home, hastily packed a suitcase, and made his way to the airport for the 5:40 a.m. British Airways flight to London.

I've been censored a lot. It doesn’t matter how credible my sources are; some messages are just going to be suppressed.

When one partner takes in information from sources their partner doesn’t consider credible, even the most seasoned practitioner of grace finds it difficult to move forward.

While most of the public evidently considers doctors to be “very credible” sources of nutrition information,7 six out of seven graduating doctors surveyed felt physicians were inadequately trained to counsel patients about their diets.8 One study found that people off the street sometimes know more about basic nutrition than their doctors, concluding “physicians should be more knowledgeable about nutrition than their patients, but these results suggest that this is not necessarily true.

Don't you believe in an afterlife?" "I don't. But I also feel we can never be certain of such things. I imagine it offers great comfort to you, and I'm all for anything that offers you peace of mind, life satisfaction, and encourages a virtuous life. But, personally, I don't find the idea of a reunion in heaven credible. I consider it as stemming from a wish." "Then what religion do you believe in?" "I don't believe in any religion or any god. I have an entirely secular view of life." "But how is it possible to live like that? Without a set of ordained morals. How can life be tolerable or have any meaning without the idea of improving your position in the next life?" I began to grow uneasy about where this discussion would lead and whether I was serving James's best interests. All in all, however, I decided it was best to continue being forthright. "My real interest is in this life and in improving it for myself and others. Let me speak to your puzzlement about how I can find meaning without religion. I disagree about religion being the source of meaning and morality. I don't think there is an essential connection-or let me at least say an exclusive connection-between religion, meaning, and morality. I think I live a fulfilling and virtuous life. I am fully dedicated to helping others, like you for example, to live a more satisfying life. I would say I get my meaning in life from this human world right here, right now. I think my meaning comes from helping others find their meaning. I believe that preoccupation with a next life may undermine full participation in this life." James looked so interested that I continued on for a few minutes to describe some of my recent readings in Epicurus and Nietzsche that emphasized this very point. I mentioned how Nietzsche much admired Christ but felt that Paul and later Christian leaders diluted Christ's real message and drained this current life of meaning. In fact, I pointed out, Nietzsche had much hostility toward Socrates and Plato because of their disdain of the body, their emphasis on the soul's immortality, and their concentration on preparing for the next life. These very beliefs were cherished by the Neo-Platonists and eventually permeated early Christian eschatology.

God is Spirit. That Spirit is the source of life, freedom, harmony, power, and well-being. That Spirit is within you. It’s not located outside of you somewhere up in the sky; it is inside you—inside everyone! People have a hard time accepting that anything good, powerful, credible, or trustworthy could be inside them, because religion has convinced people that they are bad, powerless, and corrupt within themselves. This is a lie. Jesus never taught this.

Gibbs (2003) and others (e.g., Straus, Richardson, Glaziou, & Haynes, 2005) have provided detailed suggestions in this regard. Some general principles for clinicians are as follows. Evidence from multiple studies is always preferred to results of a single study. Systematic reviews of research are preferable to traditional narrative reviews. Thus, clinicians should look for systematic reviews, mindful of the fact that these reviews vary in quality. The Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations are good sources of high-quality systematic reviews. Clinicians can and should assess potential sources of bias in any review. The characteristics of systematic reviews described in this chapter can be used as a yardstick that clinicians can use to judge how well specific reviews measure up. The QUOROM statement (Moher et al., 1999) provides guidance about what to look for in reports on systematic reviews, as does a recent report by Shea et al. (2007). When relevant reviews are not available, out of date, or potentially biased, clinicians can identify individual studies and assess the credibility of those studies, using one of many tools developed for this purpose (e.g., Gibbs, 2003). It would be ideal if clinicians were able to rely on others to produce valid research syntheses. Above all, clinicians should remember that critical thinking is crucial to understanding and using evidence. Authorities, expert opinion, and lists of ESTs provide insufficient evidence for sound clinical practice. Further, clinicians must determine how credible evidence relates to the particular needs, values, preferences, circumstances, and ultimately, the responses of their clients. Clinicians and researchers also need to have an effect on policy so that EBP is not interpreted in a way that unfairly restricts treatments. Policymakers and others can be educated about the nature of EBP. EBP is a process aimed at informing the choices that clinicians make. It should inform and enhance practice, “increasing, not dictating, choice” (Dickersin, Straus, & Bero, 2007, p. s10). EBP supports choices among alternative treatments that have similar effects. It supports the choice of a less effective alternative, when an effective treatment is not acceptable to a client. Policymakers and others can be educated about the nature of evidence and methods of research synthesis. Empirical evidence is tentative, and it evolves over time as new information is added to the knowledge base. At present, there is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of most psychological and psychosocial treatments (including some so-called empirically supported treatments). Policymakers need to understand that most lists of effective treatments are not based on rigorous systematic reviews; thus, they are not necessarily based on sound evidence. It makes little sense to base policy decisions on lists of preferred treatments because this limits consumer choice. Lists of selected or preferred treatments should not restrict the use of other potentially effective treatments. Policies that restrict treatments that have been shown to be harmful or ineffective, however, are of benefit. Lists of harmful or wasteful treatments could be compiled to discourage their use.

And even in this digital age, when face-to-face contact seems to be diminishing—and this change is the source of many of the leadership problems being experienced these days—it is the interaction between leaders and constituents that turns opportunities into successes. The key to unlocking greater leadership potential can be found when you seek to understand the desires and expectations of your constituents and when you act on them in ways that correspond to their image of what an exemplary leader is and does.

The announcement yesterday follows Obama’s 2011 agreement with automakers to build cars that average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But as important as fuel efficiency in automobiles may be, power plants are the largest concentrated source of carbon dioxide emissions. The EPA’s new power-plant rules will reduce overall emissions by at least 80 times more metric tons of carbon than the regulations for cars. Almost all credible reports suggest the world is passing the point where it can reverse, or eliminate, global warming. But that only means it’s more urgent than ever to push for historic carbon reductions. Nonetheless, many politicians — including the usual global-warming deniers and those from both parties in fossil-fuel-producing states — rushed to claim the new rules would cause steep economic damage.

for writers looking to justify the significance of our word-work, it seemed too good to be true. Yet when I dug into etymological sources and consulted classical language scholars, I found it to be credible. Abracadabra is from the Hebrew-Aramaic lineage, murky but traceable. What we say is what we bring into being. The way we speak shapes our perceptions, our actions, and ultimately the outcomes we seek.

Contrast the “maximize shareholder value” idea with John F. Kennedy’s famous 1961 call to “put a man on the moon and return him safely by the end of the decade.” Simple? Yes. Unexpected? Yes. Concrete? Amazingly so. Credible? The goal seemed like science fiction, but the source was credible. Emotional? Yes. Story? In miniature. Had John F. Kennedy been a CEO, he would have said, “Our mission is to become the international leader in the space industry through maximum team-centered innovation and strategically targeted aerospace initiatives.

Part of what we’ve seen in our economics is that elites previously used to appeal to gods, to how our ancestors did it, to the natural order, etc., to make credible their stories that justify their power and privilege. Well, over the last several decades, they found a new source of authority: economics. Economics has been used to justify a lot of very self-serving behavior. Economics has also been used to justify a lot of behavior that we now know is very damaging to the planet. Where social media comes into the picture is it is an incredible mechanism for accelerating the spread of stories, making them go viral. But we know from psychology and cognitive science that the stories that most excite our brains are not the most true or useful; rather, they are the ones that trigger emotions like moral outrage or tribal affinity. By splintering our notion of reality and distorting our stories, social media is doing far more damage to society than just the near-term political stuff. It is really an unwinding of the Enlightenment.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.

In journalism, the paramount concern is safeguarding the originality of sources, as it is this authenticity that forms the bedrock of credibility in content.

It’s important to note that these claims are substantiated by credible sources and are widely accepted as true.

Whether you are seeking financing from equity sources, lenders, vendors, customers, or from internal cash, realistic goals and achievable projections enhance credibility. Miss your projections and financiers are unlikely to take you seriously. Achieving projections helps enhance credibility and helps you get the right financing from the right sources at the right time with the right terms.

Consider the credibility of your source before you take his or her criticism seriously. And remember, there are always a few sharks cruising around, looking for raw meat. Don't feed them, or they're sure to come back" (p. 224).

The speech started as an acknowledgment of political icons—Roosevelt, Obama, and Bill Clinton—and mixed in applause lines for constituencies Hillary wanted to court, including African Americans, Hispanics, the LGBT community, and women of all races and sexual orientations. She sprinkled in bromides about economic opportunity and how “prosperity can’t just be for CEOs.” But there was no overarching narrative explaining her candidacy, no framing of Hillary as the point of an underdog spear, no emotive power. “America can’t succeed unless you succeed,” she offered in a trite tautology. “That is why I am running for president of the United States.” Even those in her camp who defended the speech acknowledged that there were too many cooks in the kitchen, that the text was too watered down to serve as a call to action, and that Hillary was less than inspiring. And these were the kinder criticisms. “That speech had a simple mission, which was a requirement,” said one source close to Hillary. “This was the chance to make a credible persuasive case for why she wants to be president. She had to answer the why question. It’s not because of her mother. Her mother’s an inspiration, but that is not why. It has to sort of feel like kind of a call to action, a galvanizing, ‘I’m bringing us together around this larger-than-all-of-us’ idea or cause, and I don’t think it did that. I don’t think it did either of those.

Nothing is known these days. All fact is conditional. Modern media allows any interested party to influence millions of people. Who brays the loudest or frames the most skillfully or feeds prejudices the most earnestly is the most believed. False news—particularly if it is backed with credible journalistic sources, as uncovered by reporters who believe they’re doing God’s work. We will be telling another version of a story, and who’s to say ours is better than theirs?

One might think that the explosion of new media outlets produced by the digital revolution would multiply checks on government power and that increased competition among different news outlets might encourage them to adopt higher standards. The reverse seems to be true, alas: instead of an ever-more vigiliant “fourth estate,” the growing role of cable news channels, the Internet, online publishing, the blogosphere, and social media seems to be making the media environment less accountable than ever before. Citizens can choose which version of a nearly infinite number of “realities” to read, listen to, or watch. Anonymous individuals and foreign intelligence agencies disseminate “fake news” that is all too often taken seriously, and such “news” sites as Breitbart, the Drudge Report, and InfoWars compete for viewers not by working harder to ferret out the truth, but by trafficking in rumors, unsupported accusations, and conspiracy theories. Leading politicians—most notoriously, Donald Trump himself—have given these outlets greater credibility by repeating their claims while simultaneously disparaging established media organizations as biased and unreliable.77 The net effect is to discredit any source of information that challenges one’s own version of events. If enough people genuinely believe “The New York Times is fake news,” as former congressman Newt Gingrich said in 2016, then all sources of information become equally valid and a key pillar of democracy is effectively neutered.

As I noted at the beginning of this chapter, one reason the Russian misinformation campaign was successful was that our country's natural defenses had been worn down over several years of powerful interests that sought to make it harder for Americans to distinguish between truth and lies. If you feel like it's gotten tougher to separate out fringe voices from credible journalists, especially online, or you find yourself arguing more and more with people over what should be knowable facts, you're not going crazy. There has been a concentrated effort to discredit mainstream sources of information, create an echo chamber to amplify fringe conspiracy theories, and undermine Americans' grasp of objective truth.

The problem with the millenials is that they are deriving 95% of their knowledge from social media posts and content being shown on tv. Kindly refer to the traditional sources ie books by doing the following: 1. Go to the bookstore and buy a copy of Citizenship Act 1955 or download a copy from credible sources such as Westlaw or LexisNexis. 2. Download a copy of the proposed amendment from the same platform and go through every word. Don't read the 1000s of opinion posts on the internet. 3. Educate yourself and relax, no one is coming after your citizenship. This exercise will take 25 minutes of your life. Not only it will stop you from sharing hate posts on social media but also it will make you appear as a literate individual and not a semi literate.

Hamilton struck back with a part 2 of his well-received pamphlet. In The Farmer Refuted, with a rather tongue-in-cheek flair to his words, Hamilton advised Seabury to study up on the “law of nature.” He went on to suggest that he hit up his local library and look up the works of celebrated jurists and philosophers, “Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui.” In an effort to denounce Seabury's credibility, he stated, “The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms, and false reasonings, is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind.” Pivoting to his readers, Hamilton, once again, illustrated the pitfalls of arbitrary rule. He reminded them that they should only have to answer to God, nature, and a government founded on its own 2 feet – by the people, for the people.

If you have a list of numbers that you would like your fax marketing company to broadcast to, they will. It's that easy. Much of the time you can even do it throughemail, but either way, you all of them the ad and the list and they'll take care of it. The problem is, people can make a few mistakes when typing up long listsof numbers or possibly have a customer listed more than once, so their fax number should make it onto the list several times. Shredding cause some problemsonce the ad starts going out, especially when short term installment loan fax machine is overrun by multiple ads coming a person. Fortunately for businesstoday, the fax marketing industry has set up, in the majority of cases, a screening process that will guarantee that no number on your list gets more thanone fax, even in the event you listed it several times. Sure - you precisely how many leads (opt-ins) each promotion generates immediately the. you can precisely how much each lead spend you . an individual alsocan know -- generally -- simply how much your average lead will expend with you over the time. Faster Moolah: Unlike the U.S. Postal Service which takes two fax list marketing to 3 weeks to provide bulk mail, the Internet lets me deliver my sales messageand begin generating sales instantly. If to be able to pictures, or marketing plans written on a table napkin and do not want to have supply file for it, then you just take a picture associated with in yourdigital camera or phone camera that has it transferred to your computer. It is then ready for sending as an internet based fax list marketing. Now, since it's outright develop a call to action straight away, several to convince first, so lets buy fax marketing get started. Initially, you might need to pique yourprospect's interest. You'll be able to do this visually, a few eye catching design. You will do it literally start by making an appealing offer, or possibly by spellingout an edge of goods. Better still, you may make use of both approaches. Twitter.com is really a source that can announce publishing a paper, changes to your website, good books and articles, workshops that you could be offer, etc. Manyoffer free things like recordings, articles, etc. It's another strategy network with the other professionals. It's popularity is exploding. Most business people still consider direct mail to be one of the extremely credible methods in contact with them. This makes marketing your services and productswith a mailing list a choice. Be an important person - Show for ones customers that you're made of flesh and blood. Add your complete name, phone number, fax, email address contact infoand business address showing that you might be a real guy with the business! faxmarketing.club/

Behaviorism has dealt credibly with the modification and channeling of behavior patterns as a function of learning, but it has not dealt effectively with the nature of the innate sources of behavioral variation that are susceptible to modification via the reinforcement contingencies of the environment. The various cognitive sciences are beginning to address the complexities of the human mind, but until recently they chose to ignore the evolutionary antecedents, such as the neural systems for the passions, upon which our vast cortical potentials are built and to which those potentials may still be subservient.

When I started exploring what flag I should plant back in 2009, there was a confluence of events in the works. The business world was increasingly using a methodology called Agile as its preferred product-development process while, at the same time, digital design was becoming increasingly important. Technology was rapidly evolving, and design was becoming a key differentiating factor for success—this was just a couple of years after the introduction of the iPhone. Companies were struggling to figure out how to integrate these two trends successfully, which created an opportunity for me—no one had solved this problem. This is where I decided to plant my flag—because I had the expertise, the opportunity, a real problem to solve that many people were dealing with, and the credibility to speak to it. I decided to work on solving this challenge and to bring everyone willing along with me on my journey. My teams and I started experimenting, trying different ways of working. We often failed, but as we were going through our ups and downs, I was sharing—publicly writing and giving talks about—what we were trying to do. Turned out I wasn’t the only one struggling with this issue. The more I wrote and the more I presented, the more widely I became known out in the world as someone who was not only working to solve this issue, but who was a source of ideas, honesty, and inspiration. So, when I left TheLadders, I had already planted my flag. I had found the thing I wanted to be known for and the work I was passionate about. A quick word of warning… Success on this path is a double-edged sword and you should approach this process with eyes open. The flag you plant today may very well be with you for the rest of your life—especially if you build widespread credibility on the topic. It’s going to follow you wherever you go and define you. No matter what else I do out in the world, I will forever be Jeff Gothelf—the Lean UX guy.

Recognizing that the President would not be interviewed voluntarily, we considered whether to issue a subpoena for his testimony. We viewed the written answers to be inadequate. But at that point, our investigation had made significant progress and had produced substantial evidence for our report. We thus weighed the costs of potentially lengthy constitutional litigation, with resulting delay in finishing our investigation, against the anticipated benefits for our investigation and report. As explained in Volume II, Section II.B., we determined that the substantial quantity of information we had obtained from other sources allowed us to draw relevant factual conclusions on intent and credibility, which are often inferred from circumstantial evidence and assessed without direct testimony from the subject of the investigation.

Governments and mainstream parties coped badly with the new problems faced by western Europe after the 1970s. They could not solve unemployment, because the Keynesian job-creation measures that had worked during the postwar boom now triggered dangerous levels of inflation, and because governments felt unable to opt out of the emerging European and global marketplaces with their powerful competitive pressures. The state, the traditional source of support in difficult times, was losing part of its authority, whether to the European Union or to the global marketplace, forces beyond the control of ordinary European citizens. Welfare programs now came under serious strain, for tax revenues were falling just as the need was growing to pay increased benefits to the new unemployed. And should the welfare state also take care of foreigners? An interlocking set of new enemies was emerging: globalization, foreigners, multiculturalism, environmental regulation, high taxes, and the incompetent politicians who could not cope with these challenges. A widening public disaffection for the political Establishment opened the way for an “antipolitics” that the extreme Right could satisfy better than the far Left after 1989. After the Marxist Left lost credibility as a plausible protest vehicle when the Soviet Union collapsed, the radical Right had no serious rivals as the mouthpiece for the angry “losers” of the new postindustrial, globalized, multiethnic Europe.

Perhaps you are questioning the data that is in Appendix D. However, precise dates for the solstices (days with the longest and shortest daylight hours) and the Spring or Autumn equinoxes (See Table II in Appendix D) verify the data. We can precisely select the calendar date. Also, the source data reveals whether ancient astronomers used an intercalary month in each year from 250 to 217 BC. As a result, the data for this analysis is credible. The most significant evidence that the data is correct is from cuneiform texts with a minor amount of missing information.

Leverage Magazine Exposure to Amplify Your Brand's Reach In the fast-paced world of digital marketing, establishing a strong and credible presence is vital for businesses looking to stand out. While online platforms dominate modern advertising strategies, traditional mediums like magazines continue to hold a special place in connecting with target audiences on a deeper level. For brands seeking to elevate their visibility and credibility, Socnity Media's magazine exposure services offer the perfect blend of tradition and innovation, bridging the gap between offline influence and online growth. As a leading digital marketing agency, Socnity Media understands the importance of creating an omnichannel presence for businesses. Magazine exposure is not just about getting featured; it's about aligning your brand with respected publications that resonate with your target market. Whether you’re an emerging startup or an established enterprise, being featured in industry-leading magazines can open doors to new opportunities, build trust among customers, and set you apart in a crowded marketplace. Why Magazine Exposure Matters in a Digital Era Magazines remain a trusted source of information for readers seeking in-depth insights, trends, and expert opinions. Unlike fleeting online ads, magazine features often carry a sense of permanence and authority that leaves a lasting impression. By leveraging Socnity Media’s expertise as a digital marketing agency, your brand can secure placements in renowned publications that highlight your story, achievements, and unique value proposition. Magazine exposure also complements your digital marketing efforts, creating a well-rounded strategy that taps into both traditional and digital audiences. A well-crafted magazine article not only drives offline engagement but also boosts online visibility when shared across your website, social media platforms, and email campaigns. This synergy amplifies your reach, driving more traffic and engagement for your brand. How Socnity Media Helps You Shine At Socnity Media, we specialize in creating tailored strategies that align with your business goals. Our magazine exposure services are designed to position your brand as an industry leader by identifying the right publications and crafting compelling narratives. As a trusted digital marketing agency, we take a strategic approach to ensure that every magazine feature enhances your brand’s credibility and connects with your audience. With a combination of creative storytelling, targeted placements, and expert media relations, Socnity Media helps your brand leverage the power of magazine exposure to its fullest potential. Whether you’re looking to showcase a product launch, share an inspiring success story, or build long-term recognition, our team ensures your magazine features drive real results. Conclusion Magazine exposure is a powerful tool for businesses aiming to enhance their reputation and expand their reach. When combined with the expertise of a reliable digital marketing agency like Socnity Media, your brand can unlock new levels of visibility and authority in your industry. By securing strategic placements in respected publications, we help you tell your story in a way that resonates and inspires, ensuring your brand stays top of mind for your audience. Ready to take your marketing strategy to the next level? Discover how Socnity Media’s magazine exposure services can transform your brand.