How can one start to criticise such an article without proving it right? :) >So next time you read something, try this: Instead of looking for the parts you ca

How can one start to criticise such an article without proving it right? :) >So next time you read something, try this: Instead of looking for the parts you can prove are false, try to find pieces you can learn from. Who says the two are mutually exclusive? If you seek the truth of something, then as a reader you should do both, and as the writer you should welcome constructive criticism. If I were to write something that had inconsistencies, false assumptions, or driven by an agenda other than seeking the truth, no one would be doing me any favours by not pointing it out. I suggest that the problem is not criticism, but what drives it, and that there are two different motives for criticism (although both can exist simultaneously in an individual): One is the pure search for truth. What drives this is a strong sense of wonder and curiosity at everything. The other is ego, whose trademark is that it usually ruins everything it touches and turns everything into a fight/competition instead of learning and cooperation. The blend of ego vs. integrity behind criticism is usually evident in the ratios of information vs. demagoguery that are used. I'd therefore change the suggestion to "next time you read something, check whether it's you ego or your curiosity speaking before you reply, and if it's more of the former, double check that you really have something to contribute before hitting 'send'". And of course, I welcome any criticism regarding the above opinion :)