Scrolling through your list of Watt's references, I begin to see the problem. He relies on a great many sources that would be shown, by deeper research, to be the product of pathological types.
Years ago I had the experience of being interested in a particular topic - a historical event - and I wanted to read everything about it that I could. The first book gave one perspective and opinion, the second gave another perspective and opinion, a third etc. These perspectives and opinions were similar in some ways, but on certain crucial points, there was wide divergence. They all seemed to be talking about the same thing, so it was very troubling to me that several acknowledged experts could have such different takes on things. I also noticed that one might mention a series of facts while the other did not, and other anomalies.
Wanting to get to the bottom of the problem, I kept digging. I also began to try to find out as much as possible about the individuals writing the books/opinions.
I learned a lot by going about this research in this way. I learned that so-called "experts" and "authorities" could have biases, could have bad days, could make big mistakes, could have pre-conceived ideas and even obvious agendas that not only colored their work, but could determine which facts they considered worth presenting and which ones they left out. It was shocking to learn that "experts" would stoop to "cherry-picking" data and spinning it to suit an agenda.
In some instances, it was harder to understand exactly what was going on... one had to read everything by that particular author, find out where they got their education, who supervised their Ph.D. (if possible) and follow that trail. I've done a certain amount of this type of pulling on threads in both The Wave and The Adventures series.
For about every book listed that Alan Watt refers to, I could suggest at least four or five others that he ought to have read to get a clearer view on the topic. For some of the books he has referenced, I could suggest that the author was pathological, and show where and how and why this must be the conclusion based on evidence.
I notice that he lists "Political Ponerology" as one of the books he references. I wonder how carefully he read it and how deeply he understood it? And did he understand that the guidelines of Ponerology can be applied to every field of endeavor?
To be fair, I'm sure that there are many books/references/sources that he has encountered that are not mentioned in this list, but still, so many of the sources are pathological and/or one-sided or simply useless to help one form an adequate view of what is really going on.
I also notice a lot of fiction. Well, certainly, fiction can be a disguise for truth, but it can also encourage too much fantasy.
Thanks for providing this list, it helps to understand why Alan Watts is probably not as well informed as he would like people to think.
