(urth) Pike's ghost

[James Wynn]

On 11/28/2011 6:37 PM, António Marques wrote:
>>> This isn't about theories. This is about when something looks like
>>> a duck and quacks like a duck.
>>
>> If it is you own theory, it always quacks.
>
> If this really is you talking, James, and the odds are it is, I'm 
> beginning to understand you a lot better.

It is a logical error that people fall into. They argue from authority 
based on what they consider is "most likely true" or "the consensus". 
This liberates them from having to explain WHY what they believe is 
"most likely true". They have generously yielded to THEMSELVES the 
default position. MY description of events (whoever the pronoun refers 
to)  is always the one that is obviously true because it is so obviously 
true to me. Maybe it is obviously true because I read irony into the 
event or because I rigorously choose not to in this case. Maybe I am 
remembering a /single/ statement by someone that provoked me when I read 
it or maybe I see the author following a genre of literature or 
historical philosophy that I happen to be very familiar with.

I can handle kooky theories. I can ignore them or explore them until I 
have built a case (in my own mind) that the obstacles against the theory 
are just to great (until more and contravening information is 
available). What I'm really annoyed by is /smugness/. It makes me want 
to take the opposite position just to see how it plays out. I think the 
smug aren't really thinking because they have afforded themselves the 
right not to.