When does a rational examination in a debated
topic between polarized opinions have value? It
is, after all, an opportunity for each voice to express
an assemblage of facts, their analysis based on
reality and their conclusions. For the most part
academic debates rely on scholarship requiring a
deep investigation of the merits of a topic leading to
conclusions that debates merely clarify. On social
media, on the other hand, expressions of opinion
have a habit of suddenly popping up that directly
contest someone else's views, accelerating with
a swiftness that identifies with the religion of
conviction, one whose tools are rapier-sharp in
methodology. The innate reaction to respond is
unfortunate since nothing can be gained. The
goal of the challenger is to render their target
exhausted of responses all of which have been
summarily dismissed with an assemblage of
well-practised rejoinders citing statistics and
improbable conclusions. Reducing a debate to
a scoring game of righteous piety in claims
that owe their generation to careful selection of
quotes in an arena where science itself expresses
doubts and the balance of plausibility matches
your thoughts, then just shrug and drift away.
No comments:
Post a Comment