system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Is there a 'quick' way to differentiate between a sound philosopher or idea verses an unsound type?

(non-philosopher here) I found myself reading about the Fermi Paradox, and in reading about that I ended up looking at a few things by Nick Bostrom. It's so interesting to read about Existential Risk and such, but how can I tell if what I am reading is respected and sound material verses not? To name a catagory of risk such things as Bangs, Crunches, Whimpers and Shrieks I admit appeals much to my personality, I enjoy the phonetics behind the words as almost a silly sound to describe huge events. It's memorable for me. Reading from there also lead me to LessWrong.com which, while I am enjoying reading, I worry about how to tell the legitimacy of such a thing. 

Did I stumble onto what equates to a "homeopathy" of philosophy or can I take this seriously?
gpt
No. The only way to differentiate between "sound" and "unsound" philosophical arguments is by becoming well-versed in the relevant literature.

But there are some things which can signal the likely degree of rigor in a particular work. 

* Is the author an academic? If so, then he's probably going to be more rigorous than someone who isn't. That's no guarantee, by any means, but it's a rule of thumb. 

* Is he an academic *philosopher*? If not, then the odds that he's going to be *philosophically* rigorous are rather low. Again, not impossible, but less likely. 

* Is the publisher an academic press? If so, then it's likely to be more rigorous than something put out by a popular/commercial publishing house. This is particularly the case if it's an academic *journal*. 

So take Bostrom. Academic? Check. Academic philosopher? Check. Publishers behind his books? Oxford University Press and Routledge, both major, respectable academic presses. A promising start, to be sure.

Now, does that mean all of his ideas are necessarily sound, or that there are no problems with his ideas? Obviously not. But it *does* mean that he's probably at least worth a read. Beyond that, you'll need to engage with the intellectual traditions in which he participates to see whether his ideas hold up to scrutiny. What works does he write about? Go read those and see whether you think he does them justice? Who writes about him? Go read *those* works and see whether they do *him* justice. Etc.