Dictators

I think it must be great to read Skeptical Enquirer on a regular basis. You get a vaccine for mental hygiene and remain calm, happy and a little aloof. You despise the stupid jerks coming with their sundry weird theories and but´s. They are irrelevant, because you know better because you´ve got it explained by the clever folks who are professional debunkers of all stupidity of this world. Everything CAN and MUST be explained rationally. The world is basically OK and rational. There are some scoundrels here and there , but they never get far. Conspiracies don´t exist as a matter of principle. Witnesses are wrong, unless they support the rational, well known explanations, that can be read in NYT or Washington Post. All the others just imagine or are positively sick in the head. Such a world is a great place to live in. Good night and sleep well, honey.
It´s just a pity that people like Whittaker Chambers don´t read S.E. on regular basis. For, if they did, they wouldn´t have doubted that the Earth is flat and wouldn´t have come with their (always) ridiculous accusations and conspiracy theories, like that it is actually (almost) round and the world would have been an even greater place than it actually is.
Why not prescribe S.E. to all population? That would have emptied half the hospital beds, at least. And George W. could sleep even better (if possible), knowing that nobody´s going to ask stupid questions about Iraq or the bin Laden family.

 

Isaac wrote:

Indeed. Do you doubt the rationality of the universe merely because you fail to grasp all of it's intricacies ?

Do you prefer your witnesses to be irrational?

You have it turned around. The evidence available supported the idea that the world was a sphere. If people used rational thinking (as Galileo did) rather than adhereing to religious dogma or accepting the ill founded theories of others as fact and allowed their own logic and rational thought to question these assumptions then the truth would have been accepted much earlier.
I will have to ignore comments that aren't sufficiently developed to merit consideration such as the Iraq and Bin laden comments because their relevance to the issue at hand is unclear.
Far from supporting the status quo with blinders on, rational consideration of the universe is the way of science (and the path to truth) whereas unthinking acceptance of half baked conspiracy theories that rely on pseudo-science and mytsicism is the way of the distant ignorant past.

 

"Indeed. Do you doubt the rationality of the universe merely because you fail to grasp all of it's intricacies ?"

Possibly. Even very probably I don´t grasp by far the most of its intricacies. But it is not the rationality of the universe I am doubting, but the rationality of NYT.

"Do you prefer your witnesses to be irrational?"

Of course. So long as the witnesses are not SELECTIVELY rational, they are also OK.

"I will have to ignore comments that aren't sufficiently developed to merit consideration such as the Iraq and Bin laden comments because their relevance to the issue at hand is unclear. "

Indeed. Totally irrelevant. :lol: And unfounded!

"You have it turned around. The evidence available supported the idea that the world was a sphere."

Thanks. I sarched on the net and you are really right on this particular point.

The problem is that rationality at any price, here and now, tends to discard oddities, which can prove crucial. Skeptics are typical defenders of old paradigms.

"Far from supporting the status quo with blinders on, rational consideration of the universe is the way of science (and the path to truth) whereas unthinking acceptance of half baked conspiracy theories that rely on pseudo-science and mytsicism is the way of the distant ignorant past."

One can, with a little good will turn it 180 grades: Thinking questioning of accepted truths leads to development and, if not truth, then at least, better understanding. Find a good detective who discards small clues, just because they are odd and therefore, probably irrelevant. It is not accepting half-baked conspiracy theories (funny that it´s only you who is using the word) but skeptical attitude to the truths accepted by the ruling establishments (not without self-interest).

I would say: healthy skepticism is precisely what I´m trying to practice. It does not exclude taking accepted truths up to consideration and doubting, especially if serious people are in doubt themselves.
I can only join you in your conclusion:" rational consideration of the universe is the way of science (and the path to truth) whereas unthinking acceptance of half baked conspiracy theories that rely on pseudo-science and mytsicism is the way of the distant ignorant past." although I am maybe less optimistic about the possibility to reach Truth. Let´s say: rational considerations bring us further in understanding causes and reasons, and forecasting effects.
I am also less enthusiastic and optimistic of human-made institutions. Not because of my negative attitude to people in general, but rather due to the old "truth" that power corrupts. I am afraid it really does.