Response to the Role of Lies/ Humbug

In offering knowledge, it think that lying and humbug play a detrimental role. Lying is the worse of the two, I think, because the liar is at least partially knowledgeable about the subject at hand; otherwise he would not be capable of creating a complete inaccuracy, in which case he would be spewing humbug. (It is true, of course, that someone who has no knowledge of a subject can give a compete inaccuracy when speaking of it, but rather unlikely). The liar must have a specific purpose for creating falsities. Generally, this purpose is to deceive (either in what is viewed as a malicious or a helpful way). Therefore, the liar is knowingly offering incorrect knowledge. This is detrimental to any issue of knowledge because a discussion can not develop unless there is active and ethical (trustworthy) participation. He who 'humbugs' should be viewed in a less intense light because he is not specifically trying to harm anyone, but only advance his own purpose or protect himself from consequences. It is generally clear, however, when something is a load of b.s. because, unless the culprit is a highly trained expert, the ideas of the argument will not connect and thus there will be no coherence. For the person who is seeking knowledge, it should be reasonably clear whether or not the informant is honest or just b.s'ing. Furthermore, it is the knowledge-seeker's responsibility to not openly accept the information of an unknown (or known!) individual, but to search for expert opinions or findings that support his claim.