Dean Kent <drkent3 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote in part:
Yes, indirectly: rejecting umpublished research is tantamount
to calling the presenter a liar. S/he who does so had better
tread carefully. IIRC, it wasn't even this that set Keith off,
but obstinacy, particularly repeating args, not refuting.

Hardly. People have to be judged in context, in toto.
Not on the lazy basis of faux-pas or other singular points.

-- Robert

Dean Kent <drkent3 (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net> wrote in part:
Easily, among those who look beneath the surface presentation.

What condemned JC in my mind was not the rudeness nor shill-like
presentation, but his consistant inability to argue his point
(refute refutations) and his reliance upon appeals to expertise.

Certainly. It has been ever so. Most of humanity uses the
reasoning faculties they possess to justify positions they
establish on purely emotional grounds. A minority use reason
as a means of determining which positions they should hold.

It will need to be a big way. The media has always been
a peculiar business. They need to fill paper and air and
attract as many eyeballs as possible. Quantity over quality,
with sensational content preferred. Accuracy a distant second,
only to save later embarrassment. Completeness unheard of.

"Critical literacy" is the skill your kids need to learn.

-- Robert