It strikes me

[doodab]

Most people are an expert on something, everyone has a little hobby horse. I listen to what people say on my particular subject. If they talk crap or use weird thought processes, shoot from the hip or parrot nonsense, I treat everything they say accordingly
it only works if your subject is non-controversial , non emotive. adonyne

I think it's good to have a little knowledge of a lot of things for exactly that reason. Your understanding of things doesn't have to be super deep, just deep enough to sniff out a bulltulipter. That, IMO, is one of the things that makes a good interviewer.

[EternalOptimist]

Most people are an expert on something, everyone has a little hobby horse. I listen to what people say on my particular subject. If they talk crap or use weird thought processes, shoot from the hip or parrot nonsense, I treat everything they say accordingly
it only works if your subject is non-controversial , non emotive. adonyne

[doodab]

So, teach your kids based on your own experiences.

I wont be alive long enough to do so.

[RetSet]

I read an interesting thing yesterday along these lines. If you come across a news story about a subject with which you are well acquainted, you'll inevitably find that the journalist has got it all arse about face, obviously having no understanding of the matter, and completely misrepresenting all of the salient points. But, having dismissed that story for the obvious balderdash that it is, you will then continue to accept news stories about other matters with which you are not so well acquainted as if they were reliable, factual reporting, and form opinions about matters based on them, whether it be who's wrong in Syria or what the government should do about the economy. Yet you have no reason to suppose that the reporting on those other matters is any more reliable or correct than the complete rubbish that was reported about the subject you understand.

**** Me. You're so right.

[Churchill]

It seems that the spread of FUD means that no source is accepted as authoritative or accurate anymore.

The internet is so full of crap it's barely useful as an information source and requires extensive filtering and experience to get sense out of it, the TV is mostly full of mindless crap, and we're bringing our children up in a world where nothing can be trusted or taken at face value and progress will halt because of it. This, not nuclear weapons, will be the end of civilization as we know it.

The signal to noise ratio is just too low these days.

So, teach your kids based on your own experiences.

[Alias]

What is thus needed, is a healthy dose of Pythonian Skepticism...

FTFY

They are reforming so will have it soon

[darmstadt]

What is thus needed, is a healthy dose of Pyrrhonian Skepticism...

[doodab]

I read an interesting thing yesterday along these lines. If you come across a news story about a subject with which you are well acquainted, you'll inevitably find that the journalist has got it all arse about face, obviously having no understanding of the matter, and completely misrepresenting all of the salient points. But, having dismissed that story for the obvious balderdash that it is, you will then continue to accept news stories about other matters with which you are not so well acquainted as if they were reliable, factual reporting, and form opinions about matters based on them, whether it be who's wrong in Syria or what the government should do about the economy. Yet you have no reason to suppose that the reporting on those other matters is any more reliable or correct than the complete rubbish that was reported about the subject you understand.

Best to ignore everything then.

[NickFitz]

I read an interesting thing yesterday along these lines. If you come across a news story about a subject with which you are well acquainted, you'll inevitably find that the journalist has got it all arse about face, obviously having no understanding of the matter, and completely misrepresenting all of the salient points. But, having dismissed that story for the obvious balderdash that it is, you will then continue to accept news stories about other matters with which you are not so well acquainted as if they were reliable, factual reporting, and form opinions about matters based on them, whether it be who's wrong in Syria or what the government should do about the economy. Yet you have no reason to suppose that the reporting on those other matters is any more reliable or correct than the complete rubbish that was reported about the subject you understand.

[doodab]

It seems that the spread of FUD means that no source is accepted as authoritative or accurate anymore.

The internet is so full of crap it's barely useful as an information source and requires extensive filtering and experience to get sense out of it, the TV is mostly full of mindless crap, and we're bringing our children up in a world where nothing can be trusted or taken at face value and progress will halt because of it. This, not nuclear weapons, will be the end of civilization as we know it.

The signal to noise ratio is just too low these days.

[northernladuk]

[doodab]

that those who have respect for the truth have that respect used as a weapon against them by those who don't. The best thing to do is figure out who doesn't and ignore them.