posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: luthier
The biggest issue I come across is that when you do know enough about a subject to discuss it intelligently, those on the "other side" (my mind is
traveling to AGW posts, here) absolutely dismiss your point of view or side of discussion because it doesn't parrot what they have been taught,
researched, or believe.
The truth in life is that there are always more than one side to controversial, unproven fields of study (like AGW), but you're correct, people do
tend to latch on to what they believe
based on a string of studies that walks their same path than allowing themselves to look at the big
picture, look at all evidence and sides, and form their own opinion. And then those of us who do--well, we're wrong, because (in my example) a
government-sponsored entity says otherwise.
Like you, I'm not immune to this plague, but I do try harder than most (IMO) to ensure that I research arguments and counter-arguments and studies
and funding sources and agendas of organizations (etc) before I make my conclusion--a conclusion that can be changed as evidence strengthens in one
direction or the other (which is what happened to me on the AGW field of study).
One need not be an expert in a field--or even work in a certain field--to be able to understand studies and research on topics. The problem is that
people think the opposite, which is why people are compelled (if they want to be taken seriously) to site sources and links and copy/paste quotes from
studies and experts. It lends credibility to their argument, whether it is necessary or not.
I would not say that philosophy is dead as much as the willingness to not marry one's self to a narrow range of arguments is dead. I mourn the loss
of critical thinking and open-mindedness.