On Being an Arrogant Bastard

On Being a Luddite  a Denier

an Arrogant Bastard

I cannot help but be impressed with how much the world of academia disdains dissenting viewpoints.  For that matter, I am impressed by the immovability both the left and the right on social thought.  For certain loaded subjects, I'm confronted with: "absolute consensus", "irrefutability", "complete certainty."  There are terms for those who just might be skeptical of these claims.  Some aren't very nice.  Lately, there's even a trend towards pathologisation of dissent.  If I disagree, I probably have a mental illness.  This is not offered up by one or two crack-pot editorialists, but soberly studied at a college near you.  

It's somewhat confusing.  In 2012, CERN reported approaching the seven sigma threshold for observation of the Higgs boson.  So, at a 0.0000000001% chance that they haven't, some physicists still felt the need to clear their throats and say "Higgs-like" particle.  So, wait... If my personal opinion is that they might not have actually found the Higgs boson- I'm not labeled a crazy Higgs denouncer?  Rational skepticism- even at 7 sigma?  

The take-away here is that only certain causes and "right-thinking" garner such vehemence.  Mention those subjects as a skeptic and you just may become acquainted with new pejorative terms.

There appears to be a label for each type of abhorrent ideal and a trend towards vilification of standard-bearers.  Often, these perceived purveyors of evil have no real power.  Interestingly, it appears to be the underlying intent of the speech that is objectionable- and the fact that those people could have an ideological following among the cretinous masses.  It’s true: you would do well to fact check information from certain sources.  But why must I be lumped in with those groups just because I share one belief in common?  Moreover, why must it be assumed that I draw the same conclusions?   

And here, I flatter myself, my views trump those of my overly opinionated friends.  Politically, I do not champion (nor withdraw support to) a candidate because of their race.  I do not advance (nor discount) someone based on their lifestyle.  I do not bother myself with the rantings of popular figureheads with no real political power and label them as evil or their views as “frightening”- and, I don't think my ideals are so vastly superior to my neighbor's that they should be foisted upon all for the good of society.

It would seem that no one wants to know how and why unless it bolsters one’s previously held belief, or counters someone else’s belief.  I have been accused of dogmatically championing outdated ideas.  Well… yes.  Where moral codes and my beliefs of basic right-and-wrong are concerned, I trend towards unyielding.  Where concepts of politics, human interactions, and science are involved, my opinions are ever evolving.  There are often good reasons to change one’s opinion.  New facts come to light and scientific breakthroughs consistently turn old science on its ear- big shifts in thinking; in nutrition, cosmology, physics, and biology.  If you haven’t discovered a compelling reason to change your opinion about some long-held belief in the last 10 years, you aren’t thinking- you’re just remembering.