Unless something ridiculous and egregious comes out of fightmetric, i have no reason to not believe them.
You mean something like a 30% drop in strikes landed, a clear 80 strike win turning into a 10 strike loss, after the decision was announced and things had to be re-visited? Jones landing 137 strikes and a STAGGERING 134 of them being significant? The damage on Gustaffson suggests this is an accurate assesment to you?
I see. You have no reason to not believe them. What reason do you have to believe them?
As for believing what others tell you, do you think Al-queda is a real group?
Interesting question. Yes, there are people these days that will call themselves Al-Qaeda, just as there are bikers who now belong in "Sons of Anarchy", but both were fabrications at the time they were started in the media. I have read the book on Al Qaeda by Jason Burke, it's the most investigative and authoritive piece written about the phenomenon and Burke was the leading "expert" on the subject as the journalist about all things Al qaeda.
"
The terrorist group al-Qaeda in fact does not exist. It was made up in January of 2001 in order to prosecute Osama bin Laden in his absence. In order to prosecute bin Laden there had to be an organization like the Mafia for which he was a part of. Under the law if such an organization exists then the head of the organization can be prosecuted under the law. So in order to bring the prosecution they made up the organization and called it al-Qaeda. But the organization is fiction. It doesn't exist. It's all a huge fraud."
It's more of a question of semantics whether they exist or not, but the creation of it was not like a group of terrorists deciding "hey, we will do stuff together and call ourselves this". It was a list of guys that the U.S was looking for, and they just named it something so people would have something more concrete to grasp. Of course wannabes followed after. The actual name Al Qaeda means "database", it was the database of those terrorists that they were after.
Seen someone contract radiation poisoning? If not, you only have others word it is dangerous?
There are numbers of scientific papers published about the subject, it has withstood peer review and the scientific process in general. So the case for it is actually strong, not like fightmetric where a person reviews something on video and then publishes it and it's not open for dispute.
You comparing scientific method and one guy publishing his own account on a video review in a closed media, just goes to show how very little questioning you do and how you put far too much pure faith into your thinking.
All of history? simply what others tell you.Obama being president? unless you were at his inauguration it would rely on others to tell you. In fact, can you name any area of your life that you are not relying on the knowledge of others at all?
You really need to understand the weight of evidence.
Comparing one guy in a video room publishing his personal view on a fight he reviewed, to for example historical events where there is plenty of material of, is just strange.
If you have a million witnesses to the same story, or if you have one guy "laying down the law" and allowing them to be your authority, is something very different.
Just like ignoring 2000+ architects and engineers, but completely putting your faith in 5+ guys who have already suggested 3 different theories and completely failed each time, having to come up with a new one just to stall a few more years.