Pride and Prejudice
When I’m not in the library, or in the middle of one of the countless coffee breaks, I actually have some glimmers of spare time. Times like when I take the bus to the center, or just before I go to sleep, I need something to do. Something that doesn’t require much conscious thought. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear seemed perfect. The story includes a few dead people, global environmentalist conspiracy, some sex and a Gulfstream G-5. Perfect. Once you remember the names of the five main characters it doesn’t take much thinking and besides, it’s a pretty good thriller, I like Crichton’s style.
Still, there is an interesting concept described. We all have our own prejudice, some ideas we believe in, which are in their essence not a matter of faith, but really a matter of research. Most at least mildly intelligent people will agree that saying someone is a bad person due to his or her skin color is an obvious prejudice and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ask those same people questions about environment protection, healthy diets, economic policy or any other field of science and you’ll encounter strongly held beliefs. Those beliefs will be upheld in light of contrary evidence, stubbornly.
Think about a concept like global warming. We all know it’s there, because everyone knows it is happening. We’ve all seen icebergs on national news, so of course the world must be heating up. President Bush is trying to cover it up, therefore it must be the truth. None of that, however, is a logical argument. How much do you really know about global warming? Not much, eh? I’m not saying there is no global warming. I just admit I have no idea.
When describing concepts you feel strongly about it’s a good idea to maintain at least a bit of doubt and re-examine your beliefs in light of scientific evidence now and then. Yourself. Hitler once fooled Europe Jews are bad. We’ve all learned from that, prejudice is bad and we should think critically about concepts and not just blindly follow the authority promoting those concepts. Or have we? Just maybe, he’s laughing his ass off in hell, seeing we still proudly hold our prejudice so dear, all those years later.
Still, there is an interesting concept described. We all have our own prejudice, some ideas we believe in, which are in their essence not a matter of faith, but really a matter of research. Most at least mildly intelligent people will agree that saying someone is a bad person due to his or her skin color is an obvious prejudice and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Ask those same people questions about environment protection, healthy diets, economic policy or any other field of science and you’ll encounter strongly held beliefs. Those beliefs will be upheld in light of contrary evidence, stubbornly.
Think about a concept like global warming. We all know it’s there, because everyone knows it is happening. We’ve all seen icebergs on national news, so of course the world must be heating up. President Bush is trying to cover it up, therefore it must be the truth. None of that, however, is a logical argument. How much do you really know about global warming? Not much, eh? I’m not saying there is no global warming. I just admit I have no idea.
When describing concepts you feel strongly about it’s a good idea to maintain at least a bit of doubt and re-examine your beliefs in light of scientific evidence now and then. Yourself. Hitler once fooled Europe Jews are bad. We’ve all learned from that, prejudice is bad and we should think critically about concepts and not just blindly follow the authority promoting those concepts. Or have we? Just maybe, he’s laughing his ass off in hell, seeing we still proudly hold our prejudice so dear, all those years later.
posted by Sergej at 10:22 AM
4 Comments:
Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, Bush really loved the book. So much so that he invited Crichton to the White House and chatted with him for an hour and was "in near-total agreement" with him. The Times ran a short story about it: Bush's Chat With Novelist Alarms Environmentalists.
(Very nice blog, by the way!)
I have to agree that the concept really sounds interesting.
"Those beliefs will be upheld in light of contrary evidence, stubbornly." and I think the reason for that is, that we all have some more basic, deeper beliefs, which we have "researched" long time ago. By accepting them and living with them for a long time they have become a part of us,our personality.
So when an individual is faced with solid, logical arguments which are changing the basis of an existing belief it is hard to imagne that these beliefs will be changed quickly. Because personality changes usually don't occur quickly ( except when you hit a wall with your head), standing up for themselves with no support and being stubborn is the perhaps the most logical reaction.
Hitler laughing his ass off - You really have a colorful imagination imagination... :)
"Dubito ergo sum" isnt exactly the most popular priciple in these days... Right?
"I’m not saying there is no global warming. I just admit I have no idea."
well, now ... i suggest you start reading some credible studies about the effects of global warming instead of pulp fiction. and if you are still not in the clear, then just take the broad scientific consensus' word for it. agnosticism is not something you should be proud about these days, especially if you run such an opinionated blog, eh?
Post a Comment
<< Home