|
To look at it the other way, the unwillingness to accept "alternative" theories is probably gated more by emotion than by logic. We need to believe in the basic good of humankind, even in spite of such aberrations as genocide, syphilis experiments, etc. But, when we look at history, it is probably more logical to be skeptical. Our history is replete with Massively Bad Things that are nearly unbelievable in scale, and we would certainly prefer not to believe humans capable of such things, if given a choice. At the same time, we also know that there are people with a vested interest in creating certain beliefs and outcomes. So, what I find interesting is people's determination to believe something, simply because it is offered as the "official story". These stories don't require nearly the same degree of evidence, or even plausibilty to be accepted, as long as they are mainstreamed as official. The logic gate is then not even activated by the masses. Yet, the moment an alternative is posed, it is immediately (and often angrily) seized upon by those same people who now suddenly require a massive degree of evidence. I believe that a default position of skepticism is far healthier in a society than blind acceptance of official stories. Where I believe skeptics get into trouble is when they move beyond questioning to actually posing an alternative story that is no more provable than the official one. |
Those are not skeptical. They are believers, just like the people that believe on the official version.