The following news story was posted by CBS SF Bay Area, CA: Mosquitoes Test Positive For Yellow Fever In Menlo Park Neighborhood I found the comments interesting: First person asks a question revealing the underlying premise the news often inaccurate: Third* person posts the usual pervert Net Flasher porn, though not an example of an underlying premise, it's become such common Net behavior I left it in: Fourth person has an underlying premise perhaps influenced by all the terrorism fear mongering: Fifth person has an underlying premise that Big Pharma controls public health vector surveillance: Sixth person's underlying premise is that the story is possibly true and the threat should not be taken lightly: Seventh person's underlying premise is that the testing is more likely faulty than the news report: Which of these underlying premises, if any, might be yours? Interestingly, the original source of the information with the facts and a number to call the agency that did the tests was posted in the second comment. (*I didn't count the one reply to the second comment in numbering the replies.)
none... i might ask what steps, if any, have been/are being taken by local or national health agencies in re notifying area residents of the findings and suggesting what they should do about it...
That fits under the sixth person's underlying premise that the story is possibly true and the threat should not be taken lightly. I should point out that underlying premises are not necessarily single isolated operating premises. There can even be cognitive dissonance between the underlying premises of one person. Did you look at the most likely facts behind the story, the ones supported by the second person's comment and included the claim he was from the agency that did the testing which also cited a phone number for the agency should anyone want to verify his claims?
I suspect your third and fourth chaps (I make the daring assumption that they're both male!) are both animated by the same motive: a desire to be oh so hilariously disruptive. Number four is surely a (laconic) satirist rather than a victim of the scaremongering you (rightly) flag. The story is a nonsense and I approached it with a cheerful scepticism. So, I doubted the journalist, doubted the ingenuousness of the commenters, and wonder - very breezily! - what trap you are attempting to set for the unwary in your presentation of the topic here.
No trap, just an educational look at how underlying premises affect our assessments of new material. Though, one of the conclusions, that of the second person which I didn't quote in the OP but which I made a clear reference to, was the one answer supported by clear, confirmable evidence. The point was simply, here were seven people looking at the same information and drawing seven different conclusions. I stated what I thought were the most likely underlying premises that led to each different conclusion reflected by the comments. You've added additional underlying premises about the motive of the forth person, and my motives to your underlying premise that the news media is unreliable. I too applied an underlying premise that person three is male. That person drew no conclusion but I included him because comments like his pervade internet comment sections be they blogs or news stories. The forth person didn't say enough to know for sure, but it's moot if he wasn't serious, it still represents a lot of people who would think of terrorism when reading such a story.
