Good thing that's not what I said then.
So when you said you didn't read or listen to Haidt, you were lying? Or did you absorb through osmosis? Have you read or listen to The Righteous Mind
You know, like most science does.
The exact same science that concluded that conservatives are so against change that they'd lie, cheat, and manipulate data just to avoid it you mean?
You presumably knew that objects fall to the ground long before you'd ever heard of Newton, right? So, when you first heard about him and his theory, did you reject it because it's someone else's interpretation of something and therefore should not be good enough to represent your own beliefs about "things falling to the ground"? Or did you instead go "Hey. That's a good explanation of what I've observed".
Oh, we're doing this again? A rambling hypothetical that is only vaguely related to the topic but ultimately proves to be irrelevant when it's crushed under the weight of even the slightest bit of scrutiny? Okay, let's examine it: Same scenario, we both observed something fall, but I read Newton directly while you read someone else
who wrote something about a narrow portion of Newton's theories and are now assuming, nay, insisting
that narrow sliver of a data point represents the entire theory, and have come to the conclusion that while gravity exists, it isn't constant because all the apples didn't fall at the exact same time.
Cause one of those is a logical and sensible reaction and the other is bat-shit crazy.
So we both agree you're bat-sh
it crazy. That's progress.
He does have a great bit about rationalizations in his book though.
But the book is 530 pages, and the audiobook is seven and a half hours long! Ain't nobody got time for that! Can't you just pick one sentence and base your entire life view on it instead? Edited, Sep 3rd 2015 9:34am by lolgaxe