Not suggesting this isn't true, but consider this:
Most people on this site consider themselves skeptics;
Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it;
This is more likely should the argument be well put together;
This will happen despite us considering ourselves skeptics;
Because it is easier to accept a well written article on an issue we know little about rather than research it ourselves;
Many of us will subsequently argue a position based upon the information contained in said article or discussion, especially against other non-experts
It doesn't matter how skeptical you consider yourself it's simply too mentally expensive to look for backup on everything you read, and we are really bad at guessing what things are outright lies when those lies are presented in an intelligent and intelligible form
All points well taken. It is difficult to be sufficiently skeptical about topics on which one doesn't have enough background, especially when one is surrounded by "experts". There's another dynamic at play here as well: many of us on HN grew up wanting to learn and know as much as we could about a wide range of topics. This motivation is an aspect of curiosity, and it is a good attitude for children, but it leads us astray when we're adults. We can seek all possible knowledge about our narrow areas of specific expertise, at least until we can develop a sense of what to retain and what to ignore. However, for the broad sweep of general human knowledge that we can't carefully study ourselves, we ought to cultivate an attitude of intentional, studied indifference. It's fine to pay a bit of attention to everything that catches the eye, and it's fine to slowly add to the set of topics about which we're truly knowledgeable, but most of what we "learn" we should consider a form of entertainment.
That goes double for what I learn on HN! Update your priors, but at a steady, slow rate.
Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it, unless another expert from that field offers a contrarian comment explaining what is wrong with it
Most people on this site consider themselves skeptics;
Most people on this site will read something that comes from a source and, if they are not experts in the field being discussed, will tend to accept it;
This is more likely should the argument be well put together;
This will happen despite us considering ourselves skeptics;
Because it is easier to accept a well written article on an issue we know little about rather than research it ourselves;
Many of us will subsequently argue a position based upon the information contained in said article or discussion, especially against other non-experts
It doesn't matter how skeptical you consider yourself it's simply too mentally expensive to look for backup on everything you read, and we are really bad at guessing what things are outright lies when those lies are presented in an intelligent and intelligible form