I will start with the main theme of this blog. No, we cannot and should not have any sacred cows, buffaloes, dogs or any other animal of our liking. There should be no idea, no topic, no philosophy, no country, no community and no person that is above scrutiny or criticism.
If an idea or argument is presented as something that is protected from any sort of questioning or doubt, that idea automatically loses all credibility and is not worth of occupying any neuronal space in the brain.
Without critical scrutiny, any type of dogshit can be well packaged and marketed to an audience, not only as a product one will like, but a product one must have. This blog is all about identifying and ripping apart all such beautifully packaged nonsense that are completely bankrupt of any real intellectual or moral substance. Thoughts, that many of us may have in the privacy of our mind but don’t want to, feel like, or have the energy or time to share with anybody else.
To most of us, skepticism is something that does not come naturally and invariably contradicts our basic intuitive nature. One has to consciously and constantly do some mental bench pressing to develop and strengthen critical thinking. But to be skeptical and ask questions before coming to a conclusion is something that is often frowned upon, if not actively discouraged.
I am sure many will agree when they think about their early childhood. One was supposed to do exactly what he or she was told to and not to ask too many questions; else it would be taken as being disrespectful or even worse, being disobedient.
Unfortunately, it is all too often that this childlike behaviour continues well into adulthood without realization. Just the figures of authority change. Reality is not relative (sorry post-modernists but we’ll simply have to agree to disagree). There are facts, objective facts in this world that genuinely don’t depend on the perspective of the observer.
And the best way to differentiate between fact and fiction is not to simply accept everything at face value, but to ask critical questions and scrutinize it before making it a part of our world view. Being incredulous & skeptical does not mean to perpetually stay in the state of disbelief. Instead, it’s to at least think and question first before accepting or rejecting something.
And this is precisely what we’re going to employ here. So let us keep an open and curious mind and try to understand the world around us the way it is and not the way we want it to be.
The Incredulous Hulk 
I agree that much too often people do not care to think things through–the presumptions they maintain about something, the consequences of a decision they're about to make. But I wouldn't say that this is due to scepticism not coming “naturally” or contradicting “basic intuitive nature”. Actually, could you clarify what exactly it is that you mean by those two concepts? Do you mean to say that so-called “intuition” or personality traits such as “scepticism” are biological traits?
I'm not thoroughly familiar with post-modernist theory so I can't comment on that bit, but as for reality being relative, I don't think it is meant in a physical sense. Clearly, there are facts, as you say, like a dry piece of wood will catch fire and burn if held close enough to an open flame, or that a metal park bench is in fact a metal park bench for sitting on, or a desk is a desk, etc. I think what is meant by “reality is relative” is that the individual interpretation of these “facts” differs from one individual to another in terms of the values, beliefs, and other cultural attributes that we attach to things; memories being another. For e.g., if we are both looking up at a clear, blue sky, I know for a fact that you and I are not seeing the same thing. By that, I do not mean that you are seeing a red sky while I am seeing a green sky (unless one (or both) of us is colour blind, haha). What I mean is that when I look up at that clear, blue sky, I see beautiful conditions for flying a glider; I remember my glider flights when I was in air cadets many years ago; I feel the joy and exhilaration of silently gliding through the invisible (except in downtown Toronto during the summer :P), gaseous fluid that fills the ocean under which we live–the atmosphere. That is what I see when I look at the clear, blue sky. I'm not sure what you see, but I am confident that it is not exactly the same as what I see, and, therefore, our realities are relative. The are made relative by our unique, individual life histories, memories, passions, hatreds, fears, and so on.
I'm amused by the use of the term “sacred cow” to refer to concepts, ideas and other things that are supposedly above questioning. Have you ever thought to find out from where exactly the food you eat comes? Under what conditions it is produced, or how it is processed? Just curious to know your opinion. I personally am always puzzled by how blissfully ignorant (I don't mean that in a demeaning or patronising way) the majority of people are about the food they eat–something that is such an integral part of our livelihoods and paramount to our good health and immediate as well as future survival, and yet most people either don't think to question, don't care to question, or just
LikeLike
*or just simply don't know that there is cause for concern.
LikeLike
Anonymous,
I am not trying to categorize intuition or skepticism as concrete biological or personality traits, but more so as something we are predisposed to vs. something we can consciously do to counter it. We all start our lives as infants with a very young and barely developed mind, which is highly malleable because of strong lack of experience and knowledge about its environment. A very young child thus is completely dependant on the adults around it and instinctively (without conscious effort) & credulously believes whatever it is told. Based on the current scientific evidence available, it can be said that young children in general do have a default bias to believe. As we mature, we start questioning things, especially when what we are told by someone conflicts with our past experience or knowledge. Unfortunately, many times, we can maintain the child-like credulity even during most of our adult lives. And here is the difference between what comes natural to us (default bias to believe) and what we can intentionally do to counter this type of behavioural bias – the conscious effort to think critically and apply intellectual and moral reasoning, to depend on empirical evidence before accepting or rejecting and argument, a proposition, a claim or an idea.
LikeLike
Anonymous,
You are absolutely right in saying that the interpretation of facts can vary between people. And this is generally expected as interpretations are often subjective and come from the human mind within. Interpretations can and many times are influenced by multiple human biases, emotional associations, ignorance – wilful or otherwise & cultural background, among other things. However, scientific facts in themselves are objective, demonstrable & independent of the human observer (scientist or otherwise) and will remain the same regardless of how one interprets or describes it, in any culture or any country. And it is these type of facts or the lack of that I'm focusing on. We both surely imagine and feel differently when looking at the blue sky. But regardless of how we both feel about it, the fact remains that the human brain usually sees a blue sky simply because blue light is scattered more by Earth's atmosphere than other colours, due to its shorter wavelength. Before and during the middle ages, the conventional wisdom was that Earth is the centre of the Universe and celestial bodies including the Sun revolves around it. Such an anthropomorphic interpretation, not remotely based on sound empirical evidence, was the norm for thousands of years until arrival of Copernicus. But that did not change the scientific fact then or now that it is the Earth that revolves around the Sun, along with the other planets in our solar system. So even though there can be variations when it comes to interpretation, facts themselves are immutable and the scientific method is the best possible way we have to discover such facts.
LikeLike
As for the food thing, I've thought about it and done some considerable research on the food I eat and where it comes from, including the meat. I do not condone and am strongly against the cruel, unethical and inhumane treatment of animals in all circumstances, especially in slaughter houses.. including the Halal way of sacrifice. However, for now I still continue to eat meat. This is not because of some uncontrollable constant urge for it or just plain refusal of not giving up on something, simply because I like it. When it comes to concern for other animals, my prime motivation is to reduce pain & suffering. And I disagree with the idea that a realistic solution to the problem is to ask everyone to give up all form of meat all together. As the majority of people ignore the simple fact that other animals too feel pain & suffering to a varying degree, it is not likely for now that we can completely get rid of our meat industry – unless there is some, very strong personal, selfish incentive for humans not to buy. So even though vegetarianism & veganism lifestyles are getting more & more popular, the movement itself hasn't yet resulted in a significant reform or downsizing of the meat industry. I think, a better way would be through governmental requirements and regulations for humane treatment of animals, along with thorough enforcement.This type of reform can be seen in the current usage of animals in medical research around the world, compared to what it used to be a few decades ago.
On the other hand, if you feel that the very usage or exploitation of other animals for our personal human benefit is in itself morally reprehensible behaviour, what are your views on usage of laboratory animals in medical research?
LikeLike
I haven't once suggested that everyone should give up meat. In fact, I never tell anybody to give up meat–I leave people to their own choices and lifestyles. Most often, I find that *I* am the one inundated by others constantly pestering me about why I don't eat meat and it gets really, really annoying at times. I wish meat-eaters would leave me be and mind their own business, just as I do with them.
As for using other animals for medical experimentation, I see it as barbaric and archaic. But don't get me wrong, I don't mean to insult anybody who facilitates medical experimentation on animals and I am by no means ignorant of many beneficial understandings of, and treatments for, human diseases that have come about as a result of medical experiments on other animals. I mean that the practice is barbaric and archaic from the point of view of the future of humanity that I envision; a world so technologically advanced, with humans so much more mature and wise than today's masses. It's not future-snobbishness or utopianism, I'm just being a bit of a romantic. And hey, what does it matter what I think will be the future of humanity? Who am I, right? You and I will be dead long before any of it. 🙂
LikeLike