Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Wiki is a helpful starting place but I won't assume it to be a balanced collection of references.

I'm highly sceptical of the pyramid claims but it does provide an interesting example of how does a non-specialist (of whatever field) begin to seek answers to questions which rely on expert advice.  The value of windfarms could be an example, who should I believe - Crazy Horse or the latest 'independent' report being bleated about by the media?

How does an ordinary person with a bunch of questions determine whose interests and motives seem to be prevailing?

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:06:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you can read the references on the wiki site, and then you can go on Osmanagic's references and read his references.

The point is that you have to assume that the non-specialist can understand the references and judge their credibility. An appreciation for what constitutes a properly sourced or poorly sourced claim is necessary. Unfortunately, that's not innate knowledge, it's to a certain extent a learned skill, as is "critical thinking". You have a PhD, so one would assume you have that skill, and the critical thinking. Not everyone is so fortunate. And you may not be able to convince somebody else of your own conclusions regarding credibility.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:28:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Wales:
I won't assume it to be a balanced collection of references

In which case it's worth looking at the associated Talk page to get an idea of the quality and fairness of the discussion behind the page. There are quite a few more references there, too.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How does an ordinary person with a bunch of questions determine whose interests and motives seem to be prevailing?

Rational or Scientific Skepticism.

Scientific skeptics attempt to evaluate claims based on verifiability and falsifiability and discourage accepting claims on faith or anecdotal evidence. Skeptics often focus their criticism on claims they consider to be implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to generally accepted science. Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds - rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

With a heavy reliance, in this case, on Critical Thinking:

... a type of reasonable, reflective thinking that is aimed at deciding what to believe or what to do. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is always true, sometimes true, partly true, or false.

It seems to be the case on the "Pro" side the Bosnian discoverer and the Bosnian government have a strong interest in the thesis.  On the "Anti" side are disinterested specialists.  Given extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that evidence has not been provided to the satisfaction, or meets the objections of disinterested specialists, "Not Proven" seems to be the rational conclusion.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Aug 27th, 2012 at 11:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series