scary things at CRTC

[Christopher Browne]

On 2009-04-20, D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> | From: James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>
>
> | I suspect there's a fine line between the healthy skepticism that
> | science requires and dogma.
>
> In some sense, they are opposites.

There's a continuum to be found there:
- Insufficient skepticism leads to believing in any kind of nonsense
that comes along
- Excessive skepticism is another way to say "dogma."

Of course, one would be presumed to *want* to believe in those things
that are actually true.

If there were no problems in determining that, then there should be a
perfect match:
 - We should be dogmatic about disbelieving in things that are not true
 - We should be completely accepting of things that *are* true

Unfortunately, evaluating the truth of claims that we receive is a
nontrivial matter, particularly if we do not hold real expertise in
the area in question.  That actually circles back pretty naturally to
the original question that led to this discussion thread.

The original question involved some assertions about CRTC policies.
It is worth observing that such policies are NOT "scientific
questions," but are, instead, *political* questions, where
believability falls not into matters of physical truth, but rather of
how government organizations are understood to behave and of what
kinds of laws and regulations they tend to impose.

It should be pretty clear that having some *moderate* level of
skepticism is of some value when thinking about suggested government
policies.  Being totally disbelieving is silly, as some policies come
true.  But being totally gullible is also silly...
-- 
http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists