Line from the Kenny Rogers song above. Maybe it’s not holding and folding so much but knowing when to join dots and when not to.
Over at OoL, Polly was attacked in comments, which is ok if based on something but she was attacked on the very things she is sound on. One of the chief obstacles to understanding is misuse of natural scepticism for psychological resistance reasons, i.e. the person can’t handle a notion, so mocks it to cast doubt, but it’s not based on anything, the mocking.
There’s a place for scepticism for sure, when the premise is simply not borne out [click pic and then again until it embiggens] …
… but there really is lazy man’s scepticism and then scepticism borne of much ferreting and laying of all the snippets on a large table, stepping back and thinking, based on the knowledge base.
A quite telling one with Polly was when she showed the words on the Mindful Infusion, stepped back and asked how would they know what it does to the neural pathways? Unless they’d experimented on humans or used the research of those who had.
And given her build up, always documented, also given the Wail coming out with the info on where Meghan and Hal stayed sometime after Polly had run it in video – she’s not often wide of the mark. Amfortas says we can’t always be right all of the time – he was referring to Sir Roger Scruton – but some people can be right most of the time, by dint of pure industry – getting off the backside and exploring strange byways.
If the truth is dire and people can go to prison, they are simply not going to hand you what you want on a plate unless they are dumber than dumb.
In the case of Polly’s scepticism on the denial of human experimentation, you only need see Cameron and Leeks convictions in Canada and NZ [the only two big players convicted on the issue] and she certainly has precedent to refer to.
I really do have little patience for ‘lazy man’s scepticism’ based on SFA but equally as bad is joining dots based on the same lack of groundwork. You’d expect me to say that, would you not, based on my working past in headmastership and professorship. In fact, I say to such people who will not act scholastically – don’t waste our bleedin’ time.
Complicating it of course is trolling – the fisker or debunker who is there simply to negate or cast doubt, not to present a counter-case. Perfect example is in the previous post on climate – the faux science, the doctored figures.
I would suggest that that is of a quite different nature to presenting connections between people and asking why and while Dilbert is quite right in that case to demonstrate the error of the activist, it’s quite a strawman at the same time. Being in a group shot in a crowded hall at a seminar is quite different to being at a party on paedo island.
Virginia Roberts was at a party where Airmiles was [Blood Diamond’s party] but in the shot, she was not even looking his way. However, what was she doing at that party in the first place, being a girl barely of age?