> We are better off for having strong dissenting views informing us and expanding the narrative. Strong dissenting views is a means to an end, not an end. The

> We are better off for having strong dissenting views informing us and expanding the narrative. Strong dissenting views is a means to an end, not an end. The truth is some point in the space of plausible ideas. If the region covered by existing ideas doesn't overlap the truth, then yes, you need to expand it. If it does, then looking elsewhere is guaranteed to bring you farther away from the truth. If the story is false (or, more precisely, Bloomberg's reporters are talking to people who aren't technically qualified to analyze the subject and are misinterpreting it and Bloomberg is putting its own spin of misinterpretation on it), then Bloomberg's contribution to the discourse - to the pursuit of truth - is of no more value than the National Enquirer saying that Batboy hacked all our computers. Possibly of less value, in that people know not to take the Enquirer seriously. The ability to have a wide range of views expressed is good for the pursuit of truth, yes. That doesn't mean that a dissenting view is of merit because it is dissenting. And in the case of this article, when it was based on a previous one that was attacked on the merits and not because of how dissenting it was, and seems to be more of the same, a commitment to the search for truth requires us to dismiss it.