Originally posted by Human_Alien
Now I ask ya.....is that a person one would feel comfortable with to just ask for an opinion?
Well, look at it this way. Let's say that there are 100 theories out there, and that one of them is true, and the other 99 are false. No one knows
which one theory is correct.
Person A (Colleen) believes them all, argues passionately for their validity, and ignores facts which refute the 99. She makes no strong case for the
one that is correct, because they are all the same to her.
Person B (Weedwhacker) disputes them all, argues that it's all nonsense, and ignores facts which support the one that is actually true. He does not
identify the one case that is actually correct, because it's buried with the dross, and he dismisses it all as junk.
Now, which person has more credibility, such that you would take their opinion as being more representative of reality? If one theory was picked at
random from the 100 and you needed to side with A or B, without knowing the facts of the matter, who would you agree with? (Assume that you will be
killed if you say that a bad theory is true, or good theory is false, if that helps
The danger of Person B, of course, is that, depending on how important that one theory happens to be, something critical may be missed, which is why
everything that is said should be passed through some sort of scrutiny. Blanket statements of "this isn't true" without any basis are not helpful,
I agree, but when evidence is presented to that demonstrates that it cannot, indeed, be true, but such evidence is ignored, that's even less
Life is more interesting if you side with Person A -- as I said, she's entertaining. But life is more accurate if you side with Person B.