|
|
 |
(Why knowing both sides of a story really DOES matter!)
Many folks like to claim that they "know" certain facts to be true regarding
a particular subject. Examples are everywhere and easy to give. For example, someone might say, "Vitamin C--that's
been proven not to work against the common cold." Oh really? Proven by whom? Who said this? Why did
they say it? What was their motive for saying this? How many papers have they read to make this their opinion?
Have they actually read Linus Pauling's best-selling 1970 book on the subject to get the opinion from the person who popularized
the idea? Is their opinion based upon an accurate study of the issue or a reciting of something they read somewhere?
("I can't remember where I read such and such...") This short essay is meant to help you think differently about how
you come to a conclusion on ANY subject. Remember, Nietsche said the majority of folks are wrong on the majority of
subjects and, of course, he's right.
Here's another example. "Vaccines aren't linked to Autism." Sounds
good...maybe. Just answer this simple question, however. How come there are NO cases of Autism in the Amish of
Pennsylvania of NATIVE born children (meaning, they're not adopted and, therefore vaccinated before moving into this
beautiful Pennsylvania country.) Answer? Zero! There's also a clinic in Chicago with over 30,000 patients.
They are a clinic that truly DOES follow the "Hippocratic Oath" (that would be: "Above All, Do No Harm"!), and, therefore,
rarely vaccinate! How many cases of Autism do they have? ZERO! How many would be expected? Well
do the math: 1 in 150 (sorry, the latest figures are now one in a 100 nationwide and 1 in 66 in New Jersey),
is: over 450 cases! Now explain this by "chance"! You can't! (If you're curious and want to explain
away the so-called "science" showing no link between vaccines and autism, go to: fourteen studies. Now THERE'S some thinking going on here!)
Just a few examples. Meanwhile, I hope you like this essay. I memorized
this back in college out of a GRE records exam book (author not given), and finally--some 28 years later, one of my smart
friends was able to give me the author! I hope you enjoy it.
|
 |
On Being a Great Thinker
(John Stuart Mill)
"No one can be a great thinker who does not realize that as a thinker, it is
his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. Truth gains more even by the errors of one who, with due study and preparation thinks
for himself, than by the true opinions of those who only hold them because they do not suffer themselves to think. Not that it solely or chiefly to form great thinkers that
freedom of thinking is required. On
the contrary, it is as much or even more indispensable to enable average human beings to attain the mental stature of which
they are capable. There have been, and may again be great individual thinkers
in a general atmosphere of mental slavery. But there never has been nor ever
will be in that atmosphere an intellectually active people. Where any people
have made even a temporary approach to such a character, it has been because the dread of heterodox speculation was—for
a time suspended. Where there is a tacit convention that principles are not to
be disputed, where the discussion of the greatest questions which can occupy humanity is considered to be closed, one cannot
hope to find that generally high scale of mental activity which has made some periods of history so remarkable! Never when controversy avoided the subjects which are large
and important enough to kindle enthusiasm, were the minds of people stirred up from their foundations and the impulse given
which raised even persons of the most ordinary intellect to something of the dignity of thinking beings."
"He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are,
he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him
would be suspension of judgment and unless he contends himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts—like
the generality of the world—the side to which he feels the most inclination! Nor
is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied
by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments,
or to bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear
them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and who do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty
which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion
of the truth which meets and removes that difficulty! 99 in a 100 of what
are ‘educated’ men are in this condition—even of those who can argue fluently for their opinions. Their conclusions may be true, but they might be false for anything they know: they have never thrown themselves
into the mental position of those who think differently from them and considered what such persons may have to say. Consequently they do not, in any proper sense of the word, know the doctrines which they themselves profess—they
do not know those parts of it which explain and justify the remainder; the considerations which show that a fact which seemingly
conflicts with another is reconcilable with it, or that, of two apparently strong reasons, one and not the other ought to
be preferred!"
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |