<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dave -</p>
<p>As for me, I'm not irritated with your keeping these discussions
going. <br>
</p>
<p>I *am* irritated with the larger (cross-domain, national/global)
discussion of "Truthiness" and the various bimodal fallacies
introduced thereby. <br>
</p>
<p>Science and the Scientific Method, for example, have built into
them a certain kind of contingency which is as absolute as
Religion's *lack of contingency* (Absolute Truth). This leads
Creationists/PseudoSciencers/AntiSciencers/FlatEarthers/Deniers to
use the truism from science "It's just a theory" as a bludgeon to
beat out a hole in the conversation to plop down their
received-knowledge and/or made-up-shit into, as if it were made of
the same stuff as what it is displacing.<br>
</p>
<p>Conversely (and I think this is where you are prone to harp), the
Establishment (you pick your domain: Science, Religion, Politics,
Society and subdomain:Physics/Chemistry/Biology,
Ibrahamic/Vedic/Pagan/Animist, Red/White/Blue/Green/Purple,
Authoritarian/Libertine/Egalitarian/Anarchic) vs
radical/progressive views on the same subjects yields a whole
other false-dichotomy. <br>
</p>
<ol>
<li>Just because an established authority said it doesn't make it
right.</li>
<li>Just because an established authority said it doesn't make it
*wrong*.</li>
<li>Just because all scientific breakthroughs were presaged by
"radical ideas" doesn't mean that all "radical ideas" represent
incipient genius.</li>
</ol>
<p>Yet I often hear these arguments (barely concealed?) in the
larger discourse... <br>
</p>
<p>I will try to follow this up with some questions/observations
about PostModernism and a reflection on the ways it has been
"weaponized" by the unlikely? folks like Stephen Bannon?</p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>