I generally agree, but I think the article goes a bit far: > Such questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reli

I generally agree, but I think the article goes a bit far: > Such questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reliability of the information at issue. In a hyper-specialised system of the production of knowledge, it makes no sense to try to investigate on our own, for example, the possible correlation between vaccines and autism There is middle ground between trusting a source because of its `reputation' and conducting trials yourself. Relying too much on reputation is also known as the "appeal to authority" fallacy.