|
We’ve made a point that scientific conclusions and implementation of technology cannot be blindly trusted. All human being are susceptible to errors and corruption. It’s interesting that economics came up because the recent economic crisis was caused by placing too much trust into free market capitalist ideology. It was dogmatized to the point where anyone questioning our economic system's integrity was portrayed as a paranoid skeptic. This is certainly not a healthy attitude.
So there are two points that need to be addressed.
a) Overall society has greatly benefited from science and progress. Despite the cost of mistakes, abuse and corruption we in the western world have a fantastic standard of living and on average rest of the world has benefited as well.
b) Extreme denialism such as mentioned in the OP breeds ignorance. It also hampers accountability of science because people pursuing truth end up being identified with extremist groups and lose their credibility.
This thread has some great examples of this phenomenon. I don’t know much about Strange or Dippin personally but the way they presented their arguments effected how much I trusted their ideas.
Because Dippin was civil and took time to educate me on his point of view I was much more receptive to his ideas and even invested my own time into further inquiry. I was not disappointed; he opened a new door of knowledge for me.
Strange Famous’ fanatical, personal and opinionated approach really turned me off any ideas he offered. I feel that his conclusions are second hand. I don’t event want to read up on his claim that AIDS is a human created virus because it will be a colossal waste of my time.
If AIDS was a man made disease would people like Strange hamper our investigation into this case by discrediting such endeavors though association? Or, are people like Strange needed to keep the flame of skepticism alive?
|