I think you missed the point. None of these "sources" you mentioned is
a recognized authority. As I said before, there is a cultural construct
called the /peer-review community/, and it embodies the best understanding
on any particular topic. It acts as humanity's bullshit filter. If it
didn't, we'd still be quaffing snake-oil and plowing fields with oxen.
Maybe I should have outlined the process as well:
For example, if you're a TV tech, and you're trying to fix a TV, you
will probably need an instrument called an oscilloscope to view analog
wave forms along the video signal path. But before you use it, you have
to check to see if it has a current "Standard Caligration" sticker on
it. This ensures that the 'scope has been calibrated to a known standard,
the accuracy of which, in turn, has been certified as traceable, with
certification documents, to the ultimate world standards of the
Systeme Internationale(SI) in Paris, or the National Institute of
Standards and Technology(NIST) in the US. If the 'scope does not have
its accuracy traceable to a world standard, you may be reading a DC
offset on the video as 1.5 volts, when in fact, it is 1.0 volts. So
you decrease the video level coming out of the video preamp to what
the 'scope says is 1.0 volts, but in reality you are reducing it to
0.5 volts, and you blank out the test signal color bars, giving you
a dark screen. You then deduce that the preamp board is screwed, so
you throw out the old one and put in a new "known good board". But
there's still no picture, so you use the (faulty) 'scope to check
out the RF detector....... bad news. After 2 hours of hacking and
head scratching, you've hopelessly screwed up a $1000 dollar TV that
only needed a 1/4 turn on some resistor, say 2 minutes work.
By the same token, the peer-review process provides a mechanism
to keep bullshit out of your world view. Unless the source of your
information has a traceable, certified chain of publication to
the peer-reviewed literature, you take the risk of screwing up
your understanding of the world as surely as that TV. If you don't
really care about that possibility, and you would rather spend your
time reading the sexy and titillating theories from John Doe, then
I suppose this explanation is rather moot. But if you do want your
world view to be as accurate as possible, I suggest you restrict
your sources to those whose information can be traced to the
peer-reviewed literature:
1- Published papers from the scientists or investigators themselves
(CHECK their certification and standing in the scientific community!)
2- Scientific, Technical or Trade Journals: Nature, IEEE Journal, etc.
(CHECK the bibliographies!)
3- Certified textbooks and tutorials
(CHECK the certifications!)
4- Courses and Programs in educational institutions
(CHECK the accreditation!)
This isn't an exhaustive list by any means. Investigate the nature
and dynamics of the peer-review process itself. This, more than
anything else, will give you a working understanding of /what/ sources
you can trust, and /why/.
>I've been really surprised how many people on this list have been so
>wuick to dismiss this theory without looking at the evidence or even
>thinking about it.
What makes you think I haven't?
>Just because something goes against your veiw of the
>world doesn't mean it isn't true.
If my view of the world is independently verifiable, then it /does/
mean those assertions aren't true. Period.
>A lot of people think that the earth
>will be here forever but that may not be the case and if it isn't then
>it's best to be prepared for it.
Yet another example of a small kernel of truth used to buttress a
monumental pile of crap.
>I would expect more from a group which always claims it has an open mind
This is an all-too-familiar lament. I've heard it a thousand times from
people trying to sell me on ideas from "phrenology" to "the world is only
6000 years old". "You just don't have an open mind, /that's/ the problem!"
Spare me.
I make a crucial distinction between an /open/ mind and an /empty/ one.
I also make damn sure it isn't filled to the rafters with the detritus
of cranks, charlatans and their mindless, knee-jerk proponents.
>--
>Only the weak are blind when the mist descends
>red_mist
I sure hope you can come to see the world with a somewhat more critical
eye, red_mist, or possibly even contemplate exactly what "critical"
really means. Maybe then the misty veil will lift, and you'll find
your strength.
Dan