4 ms·

I think the need for most people to assign the label “crackpot” vs “credible” almost immediately to any claim (especially to the more far-out claims) is an aspe

I think the need for most people to assign the label “crackpot” vs “credible” almost immediately to any claim (especially to the more far-out claims) is an aspect of human nature: a desire to break down and simplify our view of the world into discrete categories as early as possible. I think we do this not because this is the most accurate way to think, but because our minds are finite, and we need some simplifying approximation (e.g. quantization of a continuum into categories, or binary decisions) in order to make thinking about the immensely complicated world even possible. For example, we tend to seek conclusions like “we have decided that A is good, B is bad, C is bunk, and D is science — case closed!” When in reality, our understanding of truth is far more a continuous and constantly evolving thing, as new information and ideas flow through. Put simply, I think most people are just uncomfortable answering important questions with “I don’t know”, and avoid that answer at all costs, even when it is the correct answer.

DanielBMarkham 7y ago
A long, long time ago, some generation looked up into the sky and saw a somewhat nearby supernova. Visible during the day! Incredible spectacle! Within a short amount of time of those folks dying off, however, it all became BS. It was the sky god. It was an optical illusion. It was a bunch of liars. It was stupid people. It was people making stuff up. These knee-jerk, easy answers come because in most cases they're true. But even more true is the fact that there are a ton of people who just have to know. Whether it's aliens or swamp gas, they have to know one way or the other. Just looking up in the sky and saying "Did you see that? Beats me what it is" isn't good enough. Non-reproducible phenomenon is still phenomenon. The point the former Assistant SecDef was making in his recent opinion piece is extremely valid. If we can't control our skies that's a DoD/Security matter, even if the data is coming to us in such a way as to be very difficult for us to process. Easy answers aren't going to cut it.

DanielBMarkham 7y ago

A long, long time ago, some generation looked up into the sky and saw a somewhat nearby supernova. Visible during the day! Incredible spectacle! Within a short amount of time of those folks dying off, however, it all became BS. It was the sky god. It was an optical illusion. It was a bunch of liars. It was stupid people. It was people making stuff up. These knee-jerk, easy answers come because in most cases they're true. But even more true is the fact that there are a ton of people who just have to know. Whether it's aliens or swamp gas, they have to know one way or the other. Just looking up in the sky and saying "Did you see that? Beats me what it is" isn't good enough. Non-reproducible phenomenon is still phenomenon. The point the former Assistant SecDef was making in his recent opinion piece is extremely valid. If we can't control our skies that's a DoD/Security matter, even if the data is coming to us in such a way as to be very difficult for us to process. Easy answers aren't going to cut it.