[friendstock]

Jaynes was a professor at Princeton University, so he must've built up enough credibility to get this appointment.

I was a student at Princeton and actually sat in on his class for a few sessions.

[goto11]

I'm sure he was credible enough in the field of psychology, but that does not automatically make him an expert in classical literature or religion, which is where he finds the purported evidence for the theory. Therefore the theory have to be judged on its own merit, not just the academic title of the originator.

[coldtea]

>Jaynes was a professor at Princeton University, so he must've built up enough credibility to get this appointment

Well, Pauling got two Nobel prizes, but still had crackpot theories about Vitamin C

[rjplatte]

Both Jaynes and Pauling are extremely intelligent and not gullible people. Why are we so quick to dismiss their "Crackpot" theories, simply because they don't fit with the dominant paradigm?

[goto11]

It is quite possible for intelligent people to be wrong, especially when they venture outside their area of expertise.

And the cliche about "dominant paradigm" ignores the actual reasons the theory is rejected. Quantum Theory shows that a theory will be accepted even if fundamentally breaks with the dominant paradigm - as long as it can be confirmed by evidence. So that is not really the issue.

[coldtea]

Isn't the question taking what it supposed to prove for granted (that we do a facile dismissal of those theories? Who said we didn't do a thorough dismissal?)

Well, is it "simply because they don't fit with the dominant paradigm" or rather because they have been discredited time and again?