Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 1981600, member: 19463&quot;]While I certainly agree with this thought, we must also realize that the same critical thinking applies to books and all other media as well.&nbsp; We once had some protection since it was hard to get a book published in the day when someone had to put up the money for a large run of books.&nbsp; Now we have books printed on demand.&nbsp; I can go to Costco and print up a single very professional looking book for $25-$50 depending on size.&nbsp; Publishers no longer have to risk being stuck with 5000 copies of a book no one will buy.&nbsp; They can print more if they are needed.&nbsp; Many web sites are single author works with no one proofreading them before they are uploaded.&nbsp; I appreciate receiving a note when someone finds an error (spelling or factual) since these are easily corrected online (not so easy on a printed book).&nbsp; This after the fact editing is what makes Wikipedia work.&nbsp; The need for peer review requires both delay in time and in the problem of finding a suitable peer.&nbsp; When a work breaks new ground, it may not be so easy to find someone else who could detect errors.&nbsp; In the old system, new thought might be rejected simply because it is new and strange enough to the establishment thought that we might never see the work.&nbsp; In most cases this protected us from error.&nbsp; Most is not all.</p><p><br /></p><p>I prefer the current system.&nbsp; Just because you, or some PhD in a major university, tells me something, I will not accept it as the gospel truth.&nbsp; Certainly I will examine the argument and consider the factors that led to the decisions presented but we don&#039;t need to accept a book just because it has covers.&nbsp; There are old books from the &#039;good old days&#039; written by major players that have turned out to be just plain wrong.&nbsp; Whether you hear it on CT, read it in a magazine or in a hardback published by Oxford University,&nbsp; read just a little carefully and watch for places where the author might be chasing the wrong rabbit down the wrong hole.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>A great example of critical thinking is the question of Albert Einstein at least partially supporting Earth Crust Displacement which has now been abandoned by experts in favor of Plate Tectonics<font size="3">:</font></p><p><a href="http://2012hoax.wikidot.com/einstein" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://2012hoax.wikidot.com/einstein" rel="nofollow">http://2012hoax.wikidot.com/einstein</a></p><p>I find it interesting that someone now feels the need to write a page defending Einstein who died before the theory was disgraced.&nbsp; The letters quoted do make it clear that Einstein was aware of weaknesses in the theory but his writing of a forward to a book of errors does make one wonder what he would have said on the matter had he lived a few more years.&nbsp; If you trust Einstein, do it because he was firmly based in the system of scientific theory, not because he was the big name in the game.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in