Originally Posted by
PaleoEuropean
Anti-intellectualism is trying to shut people down through ad hominem attacks, intellectualism doesn't come in one flavor and your opinion has as much weight as mine does. Trying to portray your opinion as a fact by showing a book cover is a poor way to conversate. Basically what your doing is the old ANTIFA flood of insults and flooding people with information you never even read yourself. Just because it's written in a book or on TV doesn't make it a fact.
An endorsement from Osama is worth more than one from the New York Times.
I actually read the Susan Jacoby book but I haven't read the Hamilton book at least not yet.
Originally Posted by
PaleoEuropean
Just because it's written in a book or on TV doesn't make it a fact.
Because the information available to people is overwhelming in volume, it is necessary to develop good criteria for selecting the information you imbibe. Here are some helpful rules:
(1) Prefer books to periodicals. Books are far more likely to have enduring value; periodicals are, by their very nature, transitory in worth.
(2) If you like something an author writes, read more of his stuff. An author whom you find interesting is more likely to have written other material that will please you than an author you have no knowledge of.
(3) Modern books are usually better than older ones. This is partly because modern books benefit from more up-to-date knowledge (though they don't always), and partly because the publishing business is now very competitive, unlike in earlier days, years, or centuries; and competition means the best will generally rise to the top (ie, get published). A great many older books ('classics') are much overpraised, but it took me a long time to figure out that it was the books which were lousy, and not my taste.
(4) Don't waste your time reading lousy stuff, even if it is supposed to be 'important'. If it's lousy, chances are it's not important at all, at least for your purposes.
There are five basic ways to sort truth from falsehood:
Check the reliability of the authors you read: A theologian is a less- reliable source of information than a scientist.
Compare different sources of information on the same topic (books, magazines, webpages, etc..), and note the areas of disagreement or omissions. Omissions often indicate bias, while points of disagreement should be investigated to see, if possible, who is really telling the truth. Sources with obvious bias need to be studied, since these will usually have the most telling criticisms of the other side.
Observe who is willing to debate, and who is not: The former are most likely to be telling the truth, while the latter are probably trying to keep their lies from being exposed.
Observe whether the arguments are clear or obscure: the latter are a good indication of muddled thinking, and a likely marker of error.
If you yourself have a bias, be sure to study the accounts of those biased against your view: Your enemies will tell you things your friends would never think of -- or never dare to mention if they did.
Reply With Quote
Россия
Bookmarks