My first Kilt article.

[BCAC]

Here is a link to the practice of one particular people who have the tradition of doing things backwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heyoka However I can't recall where I read it now, it was a long time ago. I don't want to get into a religious discussion here though, as I'll end up getting banned under S5.

Don't forget that wikipedia is not a very sure source because absolutely anyone (you, or even me included) can edit the page and put in any old baloney that we would like to publish. Just because it's published doesn't make it right.

[Father Bill]

Don't forget that wikipedia is not a very sure source because absolutely anyone (you, or even me included) can edit the page and put in any old baloney that we would like to publish. Just because it's published doesn't make it right.

...which is exactly what I'm talking about when I refer to peer-reviewed articles published in respected journals. Anything less starts to open the door to nonsense.

[OC Richard]

...peer-reviewed articles published in respected journals. Anything less starts to open the door to nonsense.

And there's plenty of nonsense published in those journals, too!

In two different subjects I got in deep enough (though a layman) to find two major opposing viewpoints, each supported by at least one eminent scholar, each scholar having had surrounded himself with an army of yes-men sycophantic toadies, the scholars and toadies slinging mud at each other in the most respected scholarly journals in the field, the attacks often being ad hominem juvenile name-calling.

The modus operandi is to trumpet the evidence that supports your viewpoint, and try to marginalize evidence to the contrary by 1) twisting it to fit your pet theory 2) casting dispersions on the methodology used in acquiring it 3) slinging mud at the scholars who support it (all of this done in highfaluting pompous condescending sneering obfuscating language).