Criticism and Published Material

[Ian]

Originally Posted by ariel

Ian, I find it difficult to agree with your thesis that only "professionals" should be subjected to criticism. Every person who expresses an opinion, either oral or, more pertinently, printed, passes it to the public domain. From there on, this opinion becomes a fair target to counterarguments and, yes, criticism.

Ariel: I'm not suggesting that only "professionals" should be criticized, but rather that there is a level of expertise expected of them and therefore one may be more critical of the efforts of an "expert" when the effort falls short of an expected professional standard. But is it reasonable to expect everyone who publishes on a subject to be held to the highest and most stringent criticsm as if they were indeed a leading expert? These books, after all, are not scientific journals -- many are closer to works of art and history than works of science. That's not to say that art and history have no standards, but those standards are different and more subjective in nature.

This crititism should NOT be directed at the publisher whose role is technical and whose motive is to make money, but to the author himself, who is the source of the presumably fallacious or objectionable content.

A non-professional writer needs an editor, who should be held responsible for some of the style, accuracy, etc. That editor usually works for the publisher. Good publishers are concerned about accuracy and presentation. Yes, the author is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of his/her work, but editors often contribute as well and share responsibility.

Even peer-reviewed publications do not enjoy immunity from criticism, whether because of some negligence of the original reviewer or when new data become available. ...

Apples and oranges, my friend. The books we are talking about are far removed from peer-reviewed publications and perhaps too subjective to be treated in a similar manner.

Ian.