Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)

I agree that so-called "reliable sources" are often not reliable and need to
be "triangulated" by other evidence. But if some sources have a long,
consistent record of supporting racist, neo-fascist, and even pro-Nazi
causes, well, those sources are certainly suspect as well.

Alan Spector
=======================================



----- Original Message -----
From: "John Leonard" <leonardjp@earthlink.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: WEB INTELLIGENCE # 2 - jULY 23, 2003 (fwd)


> Yes, Alan, sources do vary by their reliability.
>
> But this problem is a sociological one.
> We are living in what I call an "open totalitarian society."
> Our culture suffers from self-censorship far more effective than the
> heavy-handed censorship of closed totalitarian societies, where the masses
> at least knew what was going on. Our culture is stone-blind to its
> censorship problem. It's too busy shouting about freedom to notice the
> heavy chains.
> Our corporatist structures enjoy incredibly effective and virtually
> invisible "voluntary" controls over thought and expression, via their
media
> cartel, building on generations of patriotic brainwashing instilled in
> citizens from an early age.
>
> In this context, there is a huge problem with the respectable and reliable
> sources.
> They remain reliable by taking no chances.
> Therefore, if one is interested in learning anything outside the
> comfortable scope that the respectable ones dare to touch, one enters into
> a sort of very wild intellectual landscape.
> Some topics are so taboo that one virtually cannot find any half-ways
> "respectable" source willing to touch them in public.
> For instance, you can hardly find Dr. Israel Shahak's work anywhere but on
> "hate sites." Not because he advocated hate, but because Shahak was a true
> iconoclast, and establishment "thinkers" won't touch him with a 10-foot
> pole. They're deathly afraid to. 90% of folks won't go near him, whether
> all or any of his ideas were right or not.
>
> So we have another dimension here besides reliability, and that is
courage.
> In this pampered environment, the only people who aren't scared to say
what
> they think are those who are angry and have nothing to lose. And they are
> not considered respectable or reliable.
>
> In the best of times, the reliability of sources is only a sort of
> probabilistic filter. It can give no certainty about what is true. In the
> final analysis, one has to learn to think, clearly, without falling for
all
> those fallacies.
> Clear thinking and open debate is what the defenders of orthodoxy fight
> against tooth and nail. That is why their arguments make such heavy use of
> derision and the whole grab bag of psychological tricks. It's
intimidation.
>
> Unfortunately, in worse times, on things like 911 (call me a conspiracy
> theorist if you like, but i am convinced by the evidence that this was not
> carried out by cavemen) you can not rely on the reliable sources for
> independent information in the slightest. Because it takes courage, which
> they have not one iota of.
> Only after the cat is out of the bag, they will scramble over each other
to
> be first to postulate publicly about it.
> Which means, unfortunately, that we can not rely on the "reliable sources"
> to save us, from the tyranny being prepared for us if the truth about the
> neocons never gets out. Or from the tyranny we already have, for that
> matter. It put them where they are, after all.
>
> QED: Think for yourself - because nobody is always reliable!
>
>
> At 15:55 23.7.03 -0500, you wrote:
> >the reliability of a source can be a legitimate part
> >of the discussion. While one cannot completely discount the veracity of a
> >statement based on the speaker/writer, one certainly can, and ought to,
> >raise the question that the evidence is tainted. Raising a question is
not
> >the same as dogmatically asserting its falsehood. The source is a
legitimate
> >point of discussion.
> >
> >Furthermore, even if a statement from a tainted source is true, it is
> >generally a good idea to find that same statement from another source.
For
> >example, if I say to my students during a lecture: "You should exercise
> >more, because according to Hitler, exercise promotes good
health"........one
> >might suggest that perhaps I should quote someone else who made that
point
> >rather than appear in any way to be acknowledging Hitler.
>
> it's not stuff like exercising more that we lack good sources for
> your example would be a way of advertising for hitler by wrapping him in
> the colors of a widely accepted idea