3 ms·
Consider An esoteric subject. Hard experiments. Lots written though. So you get a group of "enthusiasts" who like to read. Write about what they read. And ar
by swayvil 3y ago
Consider
An esoteric subject. Hard experiments.
Lots written though.
So you get a group of "enthusiasts" who like to read. Write about what they read. And argue over the meaning of the cryptic writings. But never actually examine the subject matter firsthand.
And then, through a combination of literary cherrypicking, convoluted logic, and debate, they come to the conclusion that real experimentation is impossible. And anybody who says otherwise is either lying or a fool.
You see it a lot in religious groups. An airtight circle of scripture consumption, excretion and reconsumption.
- mistermann 3y agoIt's also very common among secularists and their "consensus facts" (derived from a presumptive ideological framework), a form of scripture itself. A big problem with humans is that they find it very easy to see faults in the members of their outgroups but not in the members of their ingroups, and teaching about this phenomenon seems to have little effect.
- swayvil 3y agoI know, the secularists do it too. It's a human thing. But I never met anybody who said you can't do your own chemistry experiments at home. I suppose the point is moot though, if you have the opportunity to see for yourself, but don't. And as for what's actually going on there. I think there's a human inclination to live inside a bubble of dreams. Dreams supplied by solid authority/consensus/tradition but dreams all the same. And challenging the skin of that bubble is something that most of us are allergic to. And seeing for yourself, and challenging the skin of the bubble, is something that only special people are allowed to do. And special basically means not you or me.