The flipside is that you can't just say "that's biased" and ignore the science. Most science is biased in one way or another. The authors I tend to trust are the ones that are self-aware enough to actually pinpoint how they might be biased. You actually have to look at the science.
It's not enough for scientists to say "I disagree" with published peer reviewed studies on a subject. They actually have to do studies/experiments on their own to back that up in order to have any relevance on a subject outside of Fox News.
In the past month or so on Facebook I've seen interesting ads for a men's clothing service that would send you a like an outfit a month and I also saw one for a food service that would send you ingredients and a recipe for a meal.
This is pretty awesome. http://www.youtube.com/watch... Disney ultimately released Frozen in 41 different languages (25 of them are covered here) and they had to find different singers and voice actors for the bulk of them.
I think this is what they really mean when they say it's a trust economy. It's not some bullshit thing like a Klout score or something. It means that the only way you can get people to believe you is if they trust you, and it's no longer enough to just assert the privileges you think should be accorded to your stature. You have to earn trust.
You can't dislodge an accepted hypothesis until you have an alternate hypothesis that explains both the things that the accepted hypothesis explains and things that the accepted hypothesis can't explain.
I can't believe the Internet has provoked me to try and read about Ramanujan summation, Cesàro summation, the Riemmann zeta function, and bosonic string theory. It's not like I'm actually going to learn or try to use any of this.