Carl Grove
Paranormal Novice
I emphatically disagree with that statement.
We all have a social obligation to be informed about the issues, to formulate positions based on that information and the application of reason, and to advocate those positions to the best of our ability so the best memes can prevail in vibrant public debates.
This core principle is why the academic scientific process works - informed peers publish their findings and advocate for a given interpretation of those results, and then dissenting views respond with their own findings and interpretations, until a clear victor emerges. This principle is also at the heart of our political process where a (formerly) free press debates policy and social issues until a majority consensus prevails, which is (or rather, should be) then codified into law to express the will of the people.
So if you’re not promoting an informed and rational interpretation of the significant issues that interest you, then you’ve forsaken your social responsibility to participate in the vibrant adversarial battlefield of ideas.
It’s a shame that you led with this, because I liked much of what followed in your post.
Holy cow – is this what we’ve come to? Shall we now embrace numerology, astrology, phrenology, and palmistry? Rubbish.
Sir, I posit that you’ve abandoned anything even remotely resembling intellectual integrity or rationality, and everything that you say should now be forever regarded with the utmost suspicion in the minds of every reader at this forum.
I'm not sure that the issue we are dealing with is a scientific one. Science deals with (or tries to) some kind of hidden reality, and tries to use logic, hypothesis-formation etc. -- you obviously know all about that. But it is assumed that the hidden reality plays fair, and that an honest approach to it gets an honest answer, as it were. We cannot make this assumption when we are dealing with what is really an Intelligence issue, and secret agendas, disinformation and deception are endemic. The questions about UFOs per se can be asked scientifically. Questions about individuals and organisations, their possible motives, their secret roles in what might be a huge deception operation, can't. To my mind, a free press debating policy is an illusion. Almost every newspaper has a political bias, and even if it hasn't there is no way of assessing individual writers and groups involved. I also question whether the adversarial battlefield is the best way of deciding important issues. How often does someone read a paper that supports a party other than their own and say "Oh, I must have been wrong. This is the right way to go. I shall leave my party and join this one instead." ? Mostly people choose a paper that supports the party they belong to anyway!