After I chided Kolja about being passive-aggressive, Kolja pointed out that doing so on a blog is also passive-aggressive, and he’s absolutely right. Everything else aside, please consider this an open apology for that impropriety. There’s something about the internet (the anonymity perhaps?) that manages to squeeze the graciousness out of an otherwise good argument. I also fault myself for setting an unkind tone with the post in the first place. I do think it’s an argument that needs to continue, but maybe not here and maybe not now.
It seems to me that we are given a plethora (yes, I said plethora) of information in this crazy life – way too much for us to process, much less check up on. The question is what information are we willing to accept as factual and what do we reject as bullshit? I personally have never been to Africa. I have seen a lion. I’ve seen a map and a globe. But I’ve never said to myself “I’m going to do more research until I’m 100% sure that this so-called ‘Africa’ exists” and then book passage on a boat and try to stay awake the whole trip and monitor all the instruments (which may or may not be rigged).
If Africa doesn’t exist, a lot of people have been trying to mislead me (or us). The reason I choose to believe what I’m told about Africa, and in many other instances, comes down to this question…
(…and it is the question of the skeptic:)
“Why?”
How could it be that all sources of information about Africa are inaccurate? It just doesn’t make sense. Oh sure, some of the information will be bad, that’s reasonable to assume. One can, and should, parse and critique both data and its source.
But, as Joe says, there is such a thing as being so open-minded that you do yourself a disservice (I’m paraphrasing now). If you refuse to accept the testimony of experts, if you refuse to trust in common knowledge, if you refuse to rely on sheer reason, well…you aren’t going to have any African friends.
