> In the reputation age, our critical appraisals should be directed not at the content of information but rather at the social network of relations that has sha

> In the reputation age, our critical appraisals should be directed not at the content of information but rather at the social network of relations that has shaped that content and given it a certain deserved or undeserved ‘rank’ in our system of knowledge. I don't agree. For one thing, it's overkill for the vast majority of cases. With most conspiracy theorists we're talking about people who don't understand units of measure; use glaringly inappropriate unit of measure; don't understand significant digits; sometimes don't use any units at all; make multiple statements of fact that contradict each other; attempt to make implicit changes to constant values in the course of the discussion; and/or, most importantly, exponentially explode the bounds of the discussion to avoid ever saying, "I'm getting the feeling I don't know what I'm talking about." I don't need much of a reputation to realize that their system of knowledge is of such low quality that I can either reject it out of hand or simply reserve judgment. For another, suppose my mortal enemy sends me hacked email evidence of my fiancee rigging the courting process with all kinds of unethical behavior against another suitor. In fact, my fiancee siphoned fuel from the vehicle of that person, constantly tried to get their electricity turned off, and wheeled-and-dealed with my family to get them to approve of my fiancee and disapprove of the other suitor. Suppose my family confirms the veracity of the hacked emails. I would say the most significant problem I have is between my soon to be ex-fiancee and me. But if I understand the upshot of the article, the author is claiming the most significant problem is between my mortal enemy and me. Worse, the leaders of the Democratic Party in the U.S. seem to agree with the author. Edit: clarification