Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
(Re Linguist 12.1516) "Dr. Ali Aghbar" <AAghbarMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuegrove.iup.edu> posted the following question: > 1. How do I, as a reader, ascertatin what I have accessed is worthy > material and not junk. Maybe an autobiographical comment might help: I have been as an avid reader since early childhood, a voracious listener to radio programs from countries all over the globe since age 10, and an enthusiastic participant in public discussion circles, forums, and such, sincemy years in junior highschool. When I encountered the internet (in its manifestations of gopher, web, and e-mail) in 1993 I added that channel to my palette and have never looked back. I would suggest that there are only two viable strategies/methods for ascertaining the degree of usefulness of any given idea or data: One is what I could call the "Echelon" or "Carnivore" method: it is simply to process enormous amounts of information from all areas of human inquiry and to continually cross-reference new information with previously received information and to apply logical filters (Occam's razor, fallacy checks, consistency check, etc.). By doing that one may be able to seperate useful ideas from not useful ones. The other one is what i might call the "Emmanual Kant" or "Buddha" method: take in relatively small amounts of data and contemplate long and hard, and you may come up with some clear insight into what is a useful idea and what not. Both methods are, admittedly, hit-and-miss methods - but everythig else, I would like to assert, is even *more* of a hit-and-miss proposition! Most importantly, in the context of this particular discussion, whether you get your information from a scientific journal or from the web is actually quite irrelevant to either of the two above mentioned methods. Regards. Larry (who just may have put his tongue into his cheek on the odd occasion) -