ng positions that they know will be approved by those whose opinions they value. It’s the same as intelligent Christians who use their ingenuity in defending silly doctrines, in order to be in good standing with their community.
For a short while – a couple of centuries, maybe – there was a dominant ideology among intellectuals that you should follow logic and evidence wherever they led, and if you were howled down for your heterodox views, then fine. That ideology is ebbing away, to my great regret. Young people are far less likely to hold it. Perhaps it’s the result of social media? Anyway, I know from personal experience that whenever I go to a philosophy conference, the younger people there will advance what they deem to be the most progressive positions, and if they consider objections, it will be in a cursory manner, with the aim of dismissing them.
It’s more important for Fuentes, and the editors of Natural History, to be in the right camp – the camp that disagrees with traditionalists and Trump – than to follow the evidence. The thirst for affirmation overwhelms the desire for truth, I’m afraid.
It's the same as the proud "right side of history" boast. Never mind the argument and the science, it's all about being seen as progressive and virtuous.
Also, what she said.
Leave a Reply