[codr7]

This is such a weird way to navigate life.

Joe Rogan has interviewed plenty of people, different people that have very little in common, just because some of them have controversial views that make you nervous that doesn't mean all the information is useless.

[afthonos]

We are constantly bombarded by links to information. It is reasonable to make snap judgments about the quality of the information based on who is providing it. If I’m looking for accurate, factual information on a topic that is clearly prone to magical thinking, a provider whose reputation is to listen to anyone, including people who very much engage in magical thinking, is actually a very bad source. Because they will not filter on anything beyond “is this neat to listen to.”

[Starman_Jones]

You are correct. However, Joe Rogan should not be the first stop for assessing the scientific plausibility of a new idea. If that is where someone is sending you, that can- and should- be a red flag.

[saghm]

On the other hand, there's no shortage of information out there, so it's not particularly weird to filter out the sources you already have found to be unreliable rather than spend the time to try to listen to everything else they have to say

[Terr_]

Nothing weird or new about it: Suppose the foremost source for Dr. Example's claims happens to be the one time they interviewed on Coast To Coast AM [0]. That tells you something about the media-landscape they seek—or have been stuck inside.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_to_Coast_AM

[indoordin0saur]

And to add to that he's interviewed just as many absolutely mainstream scientists whose ideas are not considered controversial

[freejazz]

I don't think it's the controversy of his guests so much as many of their unqualified ramblings that get treated as expertise. It's really obnoxious that it all gets put into political controversy when it's just often facially stupid BS.

[codr7]

And you're enough of an expert on all subjects to judge?

Or are you rather shielding from whatever makes you think?

[saghm]

This is like Gell-Man Amnesia, but for the YouTube age. If I can recognize a source is unreliable for my area of expertise, it's more strange to expect that I would trust it in other areas just because I don't have the expertise in that area to directly evaluate all of the claims

[freejazz]

The odd defensiveness of it wherever any criticism is labeled as some sort of philosophy against thinking.

>And you're enough of an expert on all subjects to judge?

Never claimed to be