who are "they"? · i catch a lot of grief from friends and family for asking this question whenever the ubiquitous "they" is referenced as a source. as in, "you know, they say that...", or "i heard they just found out...", and so on. "they" are not a credible source, and i'm likely to give about as much attention to something "they" say as i am an argument that the earth is flat.

this journal entry was prompted by this article on fox. this goes way beyond "they". here's a "scientist" who falsified his data and as a result legislation was enacted and millions in cash and resources are being wasted. would i have accepted this scientific data as a source? not until someone else reproduced it, no way. science is repeatable and verifiable. taking action on the basis of unverified results is foolish. i'm not a cynic, but a healthy dose of skepticism here by our country's lawmakers could have prevented the waste of millions and perhaps billions of dollars of industry and taxpayer money.

yes, there are some things i do take on faith, but god said them and put them all in one book. outside of that, even god himself expressed the importance of verifying everything: "test everything, hold on to that which is good" (1 th. 5:21). a more literal translation of "test everything" is "examine and scrutinize everything in complete detail". anything that doesn't hold up, including everything from the stuff "they" say to mr. arnold's falsified data, should be tossed aside.

oh, my favorite answer to "who are 'they'?"

"oh, you know, doctors and scientists."

oh, of course. the doctors and the scientists. well why didn't you just say so in the first place? those guys have so much more credibility than "they" do.