In the eye of the beholder...

An editorial titled Swiftboating Barack Obama contains the line:

Nutty claims pulled off the Internet aren’t transformed into truth simply because the compiler can find someone to publish them in book form.

How about

False assertions that Gary Boone invented the integrated circuit aren't transformed into truth simply because the Stanford Law Review published them.

But, of course, law reviews operate on the principle, "if it's as published, the cite check is done. Don't bother us with the truth of the matter."

**
So when the editorial talked about Credible news reports, just what is credible, the Stanford Law Review?

From a previous IPBiz post: To accept a thought merely on the basis of who said it is not reason. It is idolatry. [quoting Arnold Joseph Dawkins, Jr.]

Here, Gary Boone did not invent the integrated circuit, and the inventors of the transistor always saw applications beyond hearing aids. And, no, Robert Clarke never wrote that all continuation applications led to patents. Notwithstanding what you may find in law reviews written by Barack Obama supporters.