What complicates things, of course, is that sometimes a person may wrongly accuse another, however, so uncritically embracing just the one side of the story without an effort to uncover the whole picture isn't a good policy either. But doesn't the apparently injured person deserve the benefit of the doubt? Because let's face it: for every thousand cases of reported abuse, perhaps only one is fake or trumped up. The rest are gruesomely real. People generally do not lie about things like that!
So when Mackenzie Phillips recently came out with her book about her father's repeated molestation of her, most people had no doubts that she was actually telling the truth. As horrible as it is (and we're talking about the near-iconic artist John Phillips of Mamas & The Papas), she simply "has to" be telling the truth. But to my surprise, I found that there are lots of people who not only doubt her account, but also attack her viciously, call her names and accuse her of lying and trying to profit from her story... Or at the very least she must have "asked for it!" Such blind accusations and lashing out almost certainly have no basis in anything other than those people's blind faith in their beloved John Phillips. Or perhaps a blanket disbelief in such a horrendous story? In other words, blind prejudice.
Rather than trying to unravel the merits or demerits of this particular case, I will only observe a troubling analogy here with many other aspects of our lives. Whenever someone happens to challenge an "established truth," many people's knee-jerk reaction is to deny it. We've seen it from times immemorial - in science, in politics, in the judicial system. Everywhere.
Occasionally, the "debunkers" can become so worked up that all that comes out of their mouths aren't just denials - but most especially accusations, ad hominem attacks, demagogical tricks to silence the other side and win the argument at any cost, and sometimes even going as far as outright violence against the other person. And all because of something they SAID! Something so world-view-shattering that embracing the new view is not just difficult - it's impossible. And it needs to be defended to death.
And this doesn't even mean that the debunker can't be right in the final account (though all too often the louder they debunk, the shakier the foundations of their arguments!). But both sides deserve to be heard. Either side can ultimately have "the truth." But it's just the manner in which these disagreements are taken up which troubles me greatly.
Take just a handful of cases I've recently been spending some time on.
- The all-new hyperdimensional (or "tetrahedral") physics whose exponents include some of the brightest minds on the fringes of physics, but whose ideas are not just scorned by the mainstream physics establishment - they're actively fought, undermined and destroyed... in more ways than one! As a former woud-be physics major I find this new theory fascinating and hugely compelling.
- Or take Egyptology. In spite of alternative views backed by extremely solid evidence and multi-disciplinary scientific thinking, new ideas regarding the age and origins of the Egyptian civilization are not just arbitraily rejected by the mainstream egyptological establishment - they're actively fought and the proponents of the new interpretations of these archeological treasures are attacked, insulted, undermined and locked out!
- Or how about the JFK case? Sure, it's been many years... but there's no statute of limitations on murder! And it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the Warren Commission report was - if not an outright whitewash - then a very "censored" and incomplete piece of politically-inspired psuedo-investigation. It could not have been a lone gunman. It had to be a conspiracy, if only you dare look at the facts and analyze the self-contradictory official testimonies. But to this day, if you espouse this view, you'll be ostracized, criticized, insulted and demeaned by people who haven't spent even a few minutes studying the available evidence. They only regurgitate the "unassailable" official version, and that's good enough for them!
- Or what about 9/11? Doesn't that trouble you? Well, if you happen to have questions - mind you, not "conspiracy theories" but just "questions" - you will be attacked and cursed and called the worst possible names. Like the "Jersey Girls" (wives of people murdered in the WTC collapse) who were called "whores" on national television (huh?!)... simply because they want to have some answers! And they weren't hysterical or unreasonable, they presented a case backed by more (independent) scientists than the 9/11 Commission Report ever had! They didn't lash out with accusations, but only asked that someone clear up some contraditions. How dare they!
This works on all levels in our society. Blinkers are required by everyone. And we stand by and let it happen.
But consider this: individually, when we look at any of those cases, most of us actually tend to have an open mind! Perhaps we won't be swayed too quickly one way or the other, but most of us as individuals are open to new evidence. Except that something happens once we start SHARING new ideas... Something quite opposite. All of a sudden, "all" of us take sides a priori, without even looking at the evidence. All of a sudden, our opposition become "idiots," "criminals" or "looney conspiracy theorists." And this mass denial mentality is driven by the mainstream media. And, shamelessly, while they're doing that, they tell you that they stand for thorough and impartial reporting.
In fact, there is a whole science which deals with this.
Check out this phenomenal (though quite long) BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" and then write a song about this!
No comments:
Post a Comment