[tmsh]

Tim O'Reilly warned us:

http://www.google.com/buzz/timoreilly/j61qZ42h6rB/Frustrated...

But seriously, that's strike two. One more strike, and personally I won't be reading the NYTimes for anything technology-related. Even via a link. Or perhaps I will. But I will immediately adjust my could-be-b.s. skepticism filters to 50%. I don't know if it's the reputation of the newspaper that makes them think that they can opine op-ed style (the first two sentences, including the lede, of the NYTimes piece have the word 'could' in it). But you can only mess up so many times before you get a negative reputation that is pretty hard to remove...

[pavs]

You should have your skepticism filter on by default at the same filter rate, regardless of the source of the information. The moment you start micro-managing your filter rate, it defeats the purpose of being skeptic.

Be skeptic of everyone. Just because someone/organization has a positive reputation doesn't mean they won't intentionally (or unintentionally) screw things up.

[powrtoch]

Really? You would say it's irrational for me to be less skeptical of the WSJ than of timecube.com? I have to doubt my father's advice equally as much as I would doubt that of a psychopath?

I'd just say be willing to update your skepticism as new information comes in. Which is what the original comment is doing.

[pavs]

> You would say it's irrational for me to be less skeptical of the WSJ than of timecube.com? I have to doubt my father's advice equally as much as I would doubt that of a psychopath?

I wouldn't say its irrational, I would say it defeats the purpose of being skeptic. Skepticism for _me_ is a filtering mechanism that helps me consume information.

Lets say I got an information from two source that says "I saw an alien species from Mars driving a Bentley." (The person insists he is not joking). Whether the information comes from my father or a psychopath is a moot point. Your skepticism alarm should set off, assuming you understand the probability of such a thing happening is close to zero.

Whether you trust your father's advice or a stranger's advice, should depend on the advice not where its coming from. IMO.

[powrtoch]

And what if the advice is "Here, drink this"?

You're correct that if we know with high certainty whether the info is true, the source becomes irrelevant (and the higher the certainty, the less weight the source's credibility carries). But if you extend that to areas of higher uncertainty... that's simply not a workable way of approaching the world.

[pavs]

I am referring to information, (I used the word advice to your point of "fathers" or "Psychopaths" advice) you are referring to everything.

"Here, drink this." is not an information.

I said: "You should have your skepticism filter on by default at the same filter rate, regardless of the source of the information."

Edit: Clarification.

[jokermatt999]

Replace "Here, drink this." with "This drink is good for you and you should drink it."

Better?

[joeyo]

  > Whether you trust your father's advice or a stranger's
  > advice, should depend on the advice not where its coming
  > from. IMO.

I can't agree with this. To not assign each source a prior based on how reliable they have been in the past is suboptimal.