Today I visited Repspace as I often do when I get home from work, and I found myself ranting about ASEA salt water. After I took a chill pill and relaxed, I began to remember a few things that other posters have share din other threads, and a few things popped into my mind. One of them, was Watchdog try to remind us all what the definition of a scam is. This was really helpful information for many of us, because without it, its pretty easy to just go off on a tirade about something being a "scam" without really explaining why, or defining just what that is.
Another point was made more recently by Wallace, in a debate about the legitimacy of Envirotabs, and how Angel, another forum poster didn't seem to present an argument based on a more widely accepted variation of "facts" or proof. I got so irritated about the ASEA thread because I found much of what was online to be repetitious marketing blogs deigned to sound professional. I found "doctors" that looked like doctors, but didn't REALLY sound like doctors. That is to say that if you've had 10 years of med school, you should be able to type me out of the water and not make grammatical mistakes that I would make with my community college degree.
So at the core of all of this is a major question that I have begun wondering and want to ask all members of this forum. What constitutes truth? What kind of proof should we have before we can accept the claims made my any mlm company or any rep? Should it be 100% empirical like Wallace says? Should company web sites be the last place we go in an attempt at verifying anything? After all, I'd like to think that the last person you would go to in order to ask about the integrity of a politician is the politician him or herself, right?
I have noticed something that has really started to bother me about today's world, and that is that too many people are believing too many things without any kind of logical rationality behind it. Its the reason why no one agrees what the healthiest foods are, whether sunlight is good or bad for your skin, good fat vs bad fat. Its as if all common sense has gone out the window because we are all so starved of optimism that we will believe anything that promises us something great.
So, Wallace, Watchdog, Jango, Angel, Travis, Jon, Beth, Ivette, ANYONE...
Can you give me your idea of what criteria a product or company should meet before its claims should be accepted? I'm not talking about trying it yourself. I mean something more procedural that we could all implement as a team.