Truth-seeker pitfalls

Truth-seeking will never be effective unless we successfully navigate around some hard-to-spot pitfalls. I suggest four strategies to help you develop your bullshit detector:

Part 1: (i) Distrust testimony without evidence; (ii) Distrust fanciful philosophy.

Part 2: (iii) Recognise salvationism in disguise; (iv) Recognise fundamentalism in disguise.

Tagged , , , , ,

6 thoughts on “Truth-seeker pitfalls

  1. Rodrigo says:

    I guess Icke reached a state were he considers his material as
    “information” – very dangerous IMHO. It is speculative at its
    lowest forms and fearmonger at best.

    Fear tends to lower people rationale, if they are susceptible
    of receiving the materials.

    Thanks for the input, Darryl.

    I just dont call ‘truth’ anymore, but ‘my perception’.

  2. Phil Henry says:

    (i) Distrust testimony without evidence;

    Trouble is, Darryl, some of the most nefarious people in history remained at large because they didn’t leave any evidence. If you imagine the resources of a government to hide the truth, of course there isn’t going to be any evidence of wrongdoing, does that mean that nothing’s happening? I don’t know — but I keep an open mind, evidence or not.

    The same arguement can be made for the supernatural, many people claim to have seen ghosts or UFOs or aliens but didn’t have a camera on them at the time, does that mean their testimony shoud be discounted? You’d probably say yes, but I’d say no, they were just unlucky.

    Bottom line is, we’ll NEVER find evidence if we don’t look where there is none.

  3. Rob Miller says:

    I’d also throw out what do you constitute as reliable evidence in determining what is true and what is inaccurate? Historians report on many things with obvious subjectivty. Just wondering if you look at History with the same lens as

    You are stripping out scientific theory from your physical experiences
    You are stripping out “mainstream” theology from your spiritual experience

    What purpose is “historical fact” currently serving you – would this not be something that needs distilled out too? I mean there are alot of things we are conditioned to believe through historical fact – ie it was a good thing that the British triumphed over the Spanish Armada or Wellington being victorious over Napoleon at Waterloo.

    Historical facts, but good positive things to have happened?

    I trust that makes some degree of sense?

  4. Darryl Sloan says:

    Phil & Rob,

    I think you’ve picked me up slightly wrong. I chose the word “distrust” carefully, and it does not have the same meaning as “discount.”

    What I’m reacting against here is the mass credulity I see, both in religion, the New Age, and the paranormal and conspiracy communities. Many people seem to need little or no evidence before they make monumental leaps in belief.

    What I consider good evidence would be, for instance, a UFO photographed from multiple angles by multiple witnesses, miles apart. Here it is undeniable that something is in the sky, whatever that something is.

    As for the multidude of questionable UFO photographs and videos, some of them you can discount because you can spot the tells, and some of them remain simply under suspicion – on a shelf in your mind, filed under “distrust.”

    Rob, you mentioned history. Ancient history is always put together with a mixture of physical evidence and theory, because we have gaps in our records. Also, new findings sometimes cast new light on established history, forcing a reinterpretation. This should give pause to religious dogmatists who place unswerving loyalty to a 2,000-year-old text.

    But don’t think I am down on faith. I recognise that it is often needed. It is better to take our limited information and put together the most coherent view of reality we can, rather than believe in nothing because our knowledge contains gaps. Limited knowledge is the unavoidable result of being a brain-based entity, and will follow us from birth to death – so, might as well get on with learning as best we can.

    Just understand that my video is largely reactionary against mass credulity. Perhaps I didn’t strike the right balance, but there you go.

  5. Darryl Sloan says:

    Rob, I watched the whole Pete Rollins video. I honestly thought it was a load of pointlessly unclear wishy-washy philosophy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: