Quote:
Originally Posted by elcreative
Tompe... the only thing that you said that wasn't true was "You can only prove mathematical things" which is what my statement referred to and also said that it was beside the point.
AGP... where did I denounce Wikipedia... I'm out of this discussion... if people can't be bothered to read what was written... I said Wiki was mostly accurate... you want to disagree with that then feel free, it's your right but that won't make it's entire content true... What I'm trying to get over to you and Tompe is a simple thing... information sources are not necessarily perfect... by all means quote sources but don't necessarily believe all you're told... the daft thing about this picking at my comments is that I said Tompe was probably correct...
|
I wasn't picking at your comments, I was disagreeing with your sentiment, with the effect of what you argued, not what you used as a disclaimer.
On being critical to sources, I have made a living from that for years, (although most my income nowadays come from audio production) and I tap into other people's lack of ability to be critical when doing PR work or damage control, so I think I have that part pretty well down. But thank you for your concern about my ability to be critical. As I implied, it's really not critical thinking to dismiss something, simply because it's on the web, the tv, the radio or whatever, and yes, wikipedia is generally trustworthy, but each article on there should still be subject to source critique - especially the ones where a company's products are mentioned. They sometime are verbatim copies of press releases.
As always, you have to ask the question "Who would gain?". In this instance, it's quite difficult imagining anyone gaining from saying there exists no such things, unless we invoke some sort of conspiracy to the whole thing.