[walden]

"Is it possible that a person can hate Mr. Bush and still be right about his numbers? Is it possible that a person can believe that there were no WMDs in Iraq and still be knowledgeable and intuitive about economics?"

Yes, it is possible, but I read supposedly informative articles in order to get informed on an issue, which means that I am not already an expert. Because I am not an expert, I need to be able to trust in the integrity of the writer and if I can't, that writer is worthless to me.

On the other hand, if I'm reading on a subject where I AM an expert (my professional field, for instance) just to see what others think rather than to extend my expert knowledge, then the character of the writer is less important to me. In that situation, I can completely and accurately assess the writer's data and logic (and know what information and arguments he has omitted as well). His integrity is irrelevant-- although I think it's always worth supporting the honest scholar against the liar, simply because a world with fewer liars is a better world. ;)

[beyond the sea]

re:

a world with fewer liars is a better world. ;)

Sounds like a great tagline.

[G.Mason]

" His integrity is irrelevant--"

You are evidently comfortable in your delusions .

Spreading them to others is obnoxious.

[William Terrell]

I understand your point. It has always seemed to me that it is not wise to judge a persons expertise in one area by his opinions in another, unrelated, area. It is wise to check his track record in the area at issue.

Did you read the bio here?