Quote:
|
See I think there is a value in stuff like this that is being overlooked in all the gnashing of teeth and rending of raiment over 'counter-knowledge', and that is the value of evidence. It encourages people to look for evidence and weigh up the claims made. They are sceptical, less likely to accept anyone's word for something. It makes them less susceptible to propaganda and spin, and more likely to form opinions for themselves.
And, defenders of democracy, isn't that what it is supposed to be all about?
|
i purchased the book 'counterknowledge' today. i will report back once i've read it but the first chapter, in introducing the topic, cites as it's complaint, not the exchange of ideas, but a deterioration in enlightenment values of the scientific method / evidentiary based processes etc.
he uses a definition of 'false' propositions (i don't know if it is his or if this is an 'accepted' defintion) as being not only that which is demonstrably untrue, but also that which is not supported by any evidences which makes it even slightly probable.
the implication of this is that, say, scholars are under no obligation to disprove that atlantis is underneath the polar ice cap, unless there is a body of substantive evidence that suggests it may possibly be.
i suspect this stuff might lack such evidence. but i'm intrigued enough that i might read it some time.