I read this review about reviewers

My comments are not in favor nor denial of current science. Only the danger in absolute disregard for alternatives and blind faith in current thought. A closed mind is a terrible waste. Our original topic, the reviewer, is a great example. He could only see his science and disregarded larger market acceptance of his approach.

When I was 30 I knew everything: now, decades of experiences later, I realize I know very little. It actually is liberating and wonderful to know so little. 

Mahjister
You are passionate about learning. I reject your apology as none is needed. Peace.  :-)

Interesting topic. Let’s assume his service is valued by the consumer. If he gets paid by the manufacturer it calls into judgment his bias- even if it is after the fact- and even if the bias were unconscious. If he has ads from manufacturers I believe that would still be the case. The only way to avoid bias, is if he sells his services directly to consumer- such as a subscription, or if his reviews are picked up by traditional print or e-sites. I think the whole internet monetary model challenges unbiased review, reporting, etc. How many would pay $5/ month to subscribe if the content was exceptional? Certainly some. The issue would be he would be under tremendous pressure to keep the content value  proposition high. My largely uninformed opinion is he wants the reward without the pressure of going all in. 

Not being political here, but the issue in 2008 started in 1977 when HUD changed banks measuring stick in loans to under served areas. Both parties acted like drunken sailors enjoying the short term spoils, but the Clinton prosperity years were driven by rampant home buying/building due to that original change and a move to 50% from 30% of loans being in those areas. Investors could buy low income housing tax credits and many did. Buy is an interesting word as the potential for loss was minimal to none.

“Humans are apes, the ignorance here is astounding.”
Flat earthers felt the same way....as did those who believed the earth the center of the universe. Science evolves. Fact evolves. Some people don’t ;-)

Any other absolutes you care to share?

djones

Good to hear on the open minds. Speaking of Carl Sagan, he also said, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality”. There is room for everyone. It’s been a pleasure discussing with all of you