Recently, I have been thinking a lot about skepticism: what does it mean to be skeptical, what makes for legitimate skepticism, etc. I believe that skepticism can be a good and healthy thing–the very act of reasoning out a theory helps a person to better understand that idea, as well as the various values that surround it. As a small child, I marveled at the logistical impracticality that Santa would face in driving his sleigh from house to house, all over the world. What if a kid couldn’t fall asleep–how would Santa detect this state from a distance and reroute his trip on the fly? It simply seemed too far fetched. Eventually I determined that Santa must subcontract with local service providers, a determination that did not in any way impact the joy I felt opening presents on Christmas morning. After all, Santa still knew that I had been relatively good throughout the year. I say relatively, as surely Santa understood the challenge to ‘goodness’ posed by my ever-so-difficult brother.
These days, I am always a little dubious about moral proclamations by politicians. (Me thinks thou dost protest too much.) All too often, those screaming at the top of their lungs (whether Spitzer or Foley, Edwards or Sanford, Haggard) do so because they feel guilty about their own actions and seek redemption through the damnation of others. They simply want to protect their current position.
Like farm conglomerates and the high fructose corn syrup commercials. Or the oil companies and their alternative energy research–the budget for which can be dwarfed by the money they spend advertising such research. Or the alcohol, tobacco, and firearm lobbies and their “have a hell of a lot of fun with our products, but use them responsibly” work.
Fine, I get what they are doing and why they are doing it.
And I get why some people may be skeptical of global climate change. But I don’t understand their reasoning.