🚀 go-pugleaf

Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:
> 
> Steve Monson wrote:
> 
> > > (Edward Rice) wrote:
> > >> Encyclopedia articles can be every bit as wrong as Usenet
> > >> postings.
> 
> > Note that Edward did not say that there was such a plenitude of 
> > errors in the encyclopedia as on the Usenet, just that they could 
> > be just as much in error. It's quite true.
> 
> Back in 1970 I checked 7 different encyclopedias and 36 other
> references for information on Mt. St. Helens.  Six of the seven 
> encyclopedias stated that Mt. St. Helens is extinct. As for Mt. 
> Rainier, all of them listed it as being extinct, although I know for 
> a fact that it erupted at least 5 times in the 19th. century and is 
> considered by the US Geological Survey to be both active and
> potentially very dangerous.

Bad reasoning throughout this thread.  Encyclopedia articles are much,
much more authoritative than Usenet postings.  Anyone can post, and the
articles are ephemeral; encyclopedia articles are written by selected
experts who can back up their work with research, and the articles are
usually printed and bound.

In 1970 Mt St. Helen's *was* considered extinct.  And although you say
Mt. Rainier erupted 5 times in the 19th century, you did not say how
many times it erupted in the 20th century.  Is the U.S.G.S. the
definitive source for declaring a volcano active or extinct?  Has the
U.S.G.S. changed its mind about Mt. Rainier in the last quarter-century?

What should have been mentioned in this thread is that encyclopedia
articles generally reflect accepted thinking as of the time they are
written.  It's much better to say that these articles can become
obsolete with time as new information becomes available.