Originally Posted by
SoCo KungFu
See I actually am not disagreeing here. This is exactly why, for instance, roughly only 12% of the population (US pop'n) grows up to become a different faith than that of their parents (not even specifying what they are switching to, just simply switching). Its why the greatest predictor of political affiliation at adulthood is the political affiliation of your parents. But that tells us something, doesn't it? It tells us that values are imprinted yes, but at some point early in development, they are malleable. It tells us that with proper education, if you can reach people early enough (not necessarily young, but chronologically before they become crystallized into one path of competing ideologies), they can be protected from that indoctrination before it sets in. Literally, bad ideas can be "vaccinated" against. And it doesn't take a lot of education. It doesn't require facts. It doesn't require teaching someone what to think. It simply means giving the tools on how to think. This is why its somewhat comical when people tell me I'm no more than a science "cultist." Its a "religion." I don't even care if people learn science. I care that they can simply demonstrate decent reasoning. I mean, does no one read Sherlock anymore? (Nevermind he's actually a logical fallacy, but I won't split hairs here). Critical thinking, its really not THAT hard.
Certainly. Anything higher than basic physics makes my head ache. My understanding of economics is only because I've studied game theory in a biological context (game theory originates in economics), speaking of something else that makes my head scream, try reading some game theory...But ignorance is fine. All I ask for is that people be able to demonstrate that if given XX number of propositions, they can reasonably rule out the ones which are obvious nonsense. And then, when you have a few left that might seem reasonable, you have the reasoning to say, these ones really don't jive with evidence, regardless of how I personally feel about them. Not, on the other hand, lash out at fictitious evil doers because said evidence doesn't fit ones preconceived answers. And if you're going to call out a source, particularly those that are vetted by a field of peers (ie, experts), better have some good grounds to show why you can do so.
All this, I would think to most reasonable people, should be fairly obvious. But for some....
I just don't think my demands are really that...demanding. But I've learned, primarily from studying biology in the seat of southern baptism no less, that usually its more efficient to use these types of people as examples rather than trying to reach them. Never said it was nice.