Hello and welcome fellow travelers of the Blog-verse. This is the first post of a blog I have decided to dedicate to logic and reason. Really, I was just looking for an appropriate venue to discuss science, religion, society, politics, and philosophy, and also to share neat scientific discoveries and interesting online resources… and well, this seems as appropriate a venue as any. I can’t promise regular updates, or even that I will be supplying any novel insight. All I hope is to be somewhat entertaining and give you food for thought. So stay tuned and enjoy the ride. Who knows, you might learn something.
Also, I suppose I should start with a little disclaimer. I’m not looking to offend anyone, although it’s bound to happen given the subject matter I’m hoping to discuss. So if you disagree with or object to something I say, I’d like to hear from you. But let’s try to avoid the digital cock-waving matches. If you have a valid counterpoint, let’s hear it. And for my part, I promise to avoid being a pretentious prick as best as I can.
So without further ado, let’s start things off with a little levity. A friend (two, actually) passed along this video today, and it seemed most appropriate for this, the maiden post of my blog.
Tim Minchin’s “Storm: The Animated Movie”
Brilliant! As you might have guessed from the quote I included in my personal description, I have had a long running love for Tim Minchin and his comedy, and he continues to impress me. He has a rare combination of raw insightful wit and musical talent that makes for an amazing entertainer. In this case, Mr. Minchin hits on a number of arguments I have actually encountered before, and I enjoyed his counters.
“Alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine.”
LOL! And despite the frustrating use of ‘proved’ rather than ‘proven’, the point is well made.
I especially love his description of the scientific perspective vs. that of a fundamentalist. He is spot on, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find any true proponent of ‘the enlightenment’—atheist, skeptic or neo-darwinian alike—who would not also “spin on a fucking dime” if irrefutable evidence were presented that ran contrary to their current world view (provided, of course, that the weight of the new evidence was greater than that of the existing evidence…). But right at the end he hit on something that I find so incredibly frustrating about just these sorts of debates.
“And if perchance I have offended, think but this and all is mended: We’d as well be 10 minutes back in time for all the chance you’ll change your mind.”
*sigh* There lies the rub… and ironically an apt definition of fundamentalism. Look… how can we ever hope to resolve anything with a system where only one side is even willing to consider the possibility of being wrong? And these are the people that are so often accused of being closed-minded…
It’s an exercise in futility. But here we are, trapped in a world with those who are willing to learn and adapt with new information—one might even be so brave as to say ‘evolve’—and those who are not (blatant self-censorship). Luckily I'm a glutton for punishment, and I'm not alone. I suppose all we can do is continue to refine our world-views, argue with hippies at dinner parties, and most importantly remember that “if you’re too open-minded, your brain will fall out”.
No comments:
Post a Comment