Truth at all costs (was RE: virus: from the Skeptic's newsletter...)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Richard Brodie

A thought related to the "skeptic's conundrum"...

What if the truth is ugly?

What evidence is there that beauty is less important than truth? If that evidence is lacking, there is no rational basis for believing ugly truths at the expense of beautiful lies.

It is probably no coincidence that the young and healthy are the most attracted to the idea of unalloyed truth...(and unalloyed Ayn Rand)

What if the truth is useless?
What if the truth is boring?

Truth, yes. Truth at all costs, no.

Deron

(btw, how many people here have read Kurt Vonnegut's _Cat's Cradle_? That should be required reading for the list in general, and this thread in particular...)

___

>From: David McFadzean [SMTP:morpheus@lucifer.com]

>>From: Richard Brodie <richard@brodietech.com>

>>That comment[1] is the key that unlocks Level 3.

>Perhaps Wade's comment[2] is the key that unlocks Level 4. ;-)

>[1] >>The lie which skeptics tell themselves is that the truth

>>always, in the end, makes things better. Always.

>[2] >That comment is just plain piled-high bullshit.

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Richard Brodie