Book People Archive

Re: Thoughts on the Internet's Founding Myths

On 6/13/06, Sam Vaknin Narcissus Publications <vaksam@[redacted]> wrote:
> The barriers to
> entry are so low that the Internet attracts those less gifted
> intellectually. It is a filter that lets in the stupid, the mentally ill,
> the charlatan and scammer, the very young, the bored, and the unqualified.
> It is far easier to publish a blog, for instance, than to write for the New
> York Times. Putting up a Website with all manner of spurious claims for
> knowledge or experience is easy compared to the peer review process that
> vets and culls scientific papers.

Those aren't realistic comparisons, though. There's lots of people out
there more qualified then those writing for the Alva Review-Courier ,
especially in specific areas. When looking at what books are widely
available in used bookstores and supermarkets--what people are
actually reading--I don't see any peer reviewed material, and I see a
lot of stuff ranging from pop culture simplified to stuff completely
off the rocker, like the best-seller from the man the FDA has shut
down in everyway possible because his medical advice is worthless. Of
course, that hasn't changed; looking for PG-eligible books, I still
don't see a wealth of peer reviewed material.

I'm looking at an article on your website: "The Fourth Law (of
Robotics)". As far as I know, you don't have a degree in any area
which would make you an expert in subject covered, and as someone who
does, I find several things to be very critical of. Was it
peer-reviewed? In your optimal world, would it exist?

> Dismal results ensue: fads like environmentalism and alternative "medicine"
> spread malignantly and seek to silence dissidents, sometimes by violent
> means;

Really? I'm not a fan of alternative medicine at all, but the only
people they hurt are their patients. As far as I know, James Randi,
Penn Teller and friends haven't been dealing with hordes of people
putting homeopathic poisons in their drinks.

> the fare served by the media now consists exclusively of soap operas
> and reality TV shows;

I'm getting somewhat tired of cheap shots at modern media on this
list. There are many shows on right now that deal with a complex set
of real world issues on a weekly basis. Was it really superior when we
had "I Love Lucy" and couldn't say pregnant on TV?