The central message of this post from Michael Caulfield is that you have to trust someone, but the question is, whom? And I can accept that, though the phrase "trust but verify" springs to mind. But I really dislike the idea of trust as currency, which is the other core message of this post. That aside, he also says, "our problem is not gullibility, but rather the gullibility of cynics," using three examples of unwarranted doubt. But one of those involves Canada's National Post, which is most definitely not a trustworthy source. Another involves the Mayo Clinic - "they make money off of patients so they want to portray regular hospitals as working" - which strikes me as a good reason to distrust the U.S. hospital system. Even the academic article is questionable. Compared with the hundreds of cites other articles about birds, biologists, and indigenous knowledge get, 34 cites really is "meh" and a good reason to be sceptical. Ultimately, if nobody is trustworthy, you don't have to trust anyone.
Today: 2 Total: 105 [Direct link] [Share]
