"Because many people tend to be followers rather than leaders, and
because many people prefer the comfort of feeling part of a group to
the relative discomfort of being "trend-setters", most people tend to
align with a leader of their choice. This can lead to destructive,
mindless behavior and inculcate intellectual laziness, which can often
be characterized as rank stupidity."
That's not the same thing as saying that most people are stupid, but
it might be a middle ground that's more conducive to productive
discussion regarding what to actually *do* about it.
And with groups in play, stupidity might be relative. Consider, for
instance, that a YEC would consider most biologists, paleontologists,
anthropologists, physicists and geologists as being incredibly stupid
for not seeing the obvious clarity of the point of view that aligns to
strict Biblical interpretation.
And that is relevant, because Isaac Newton was a young-earth
creationist and, when he wasn't inventing calculus in order to define
physics and optics, he was trying to find proofs of a literal
interpretation of Biblical teachings. So which was he? Stupid or
brilliant?
Or consider what might happen if I were to begin holding forth on the
subject of opera, about which I know essentially nothing. To an
aficionado I'd sure as hell look plenty stupid, but it would
(probably) be a mistake to characterize me as being so, instead of
simply labeling me a loudmouthed ignoramus on the topic.
The point is that we might be more inclined to consider those who are
not part of our in-crowd as being stupid simply because they aren't
part of our in-crowd, but as with the case of Newton, it seems unwise
to apply one label to all members of a clade.
If you're thinking of "stupid" as meaning "inclined to mental
laziness", I'd probably agree, but my personal working definition of
"stupid" is (more or less) "totally incapable of comprehending
something". I don't believe the concepts are equivalent, and I don't
believe most people fit that definition of stupid.
Warren Ockrassa
in that sense stupid is not only relative, but its definition depends on what
one chooses to believe to be true knowledge. perhaps how you determine what is
truth is genuine wisdom. one who chooses to remain ignorant about arguments
that logically refute their belief system may instead excercise their consider
intellect to rationalize their belief just as newton tried to resolve religion
with science to keep the church off his back.
jon mann
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
