Indeed it was precisely because they were well-informed that they were able to hold their opposing certainties so firmly...There's a lot I don't like about the editorial, but its argument that more well-informed people paradoxically can make more errors in supporting questionable points is quite good.
It gets to the point where I actually trust someone less if they're particularly vocal about how rational and well-informed they are, particularly if they're using those traits to argue that they should be paid more attention than the obvious idiots they're talking with. Logic is an excellent tool, but it can be used to make bullshit seem acceptable just as easily as it can be used to actually find the truth; someone who is treating it as an incorruptible force for good isn't going to be watching out for the errors that can creep in.
There's also another point: It's usually a good idea to remind oneself that not everyone who comes to a different conclusion is going to be a useless idiot. That doesn't mean one has to find compromises or points of agreement, since it is always possible that even an intelligent person is completely wrong, but it usually helps avoid some degree of rancor if one remembers that most people do try to have reasons that sound good to them.
And one final detail - ultimately, this particular conservative author concludes that the accusations made against former President Clinton were more truthful than we were willing to admit, and that the accusations against Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings are still vague and possibly unknowable. This matches up well enough with what the author might want to be true that I'm forced to conclude knowing all this is no magic wand to prevent bias either.
No comments:
Post a Comment