What is "stronger" begs the question. In one case I dealt with, someone who lived on the Eastern Shore of Maryland was claimed to have attended a school in Potomac on the other side of the bay. It's a three hour plus drive from one to the other, and the school in Potomac is not a boarding school. However this was reported by a "reputable" medium, and therefore it became "true", in spite of the fact that it couldn't possibly be true. I finally had to cite a high school yearbook to beat this down, because people were willing to prefer a source even though it could readily be shown to be false.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/08, The Mangoe the.mangoe@gmail.com wrote:
More commonly the problems I've had have been over "reputable" sources which happened to be wrong.
I would think that they only way to show that something in a "reputable source" is "wrong" is to show a stronger "reputable source" that says it's wrong. Otherwise, it's "reputable source" vs "something I just know to be true".