On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote:
The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion > is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority > and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly > selected in evolutionary terms. > I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
