What kind of thinking is conducive to mankind's advance, observational thinking or the thinking of the sceptic? Does being of sceptical mind force conformity to a particular method of analysing data as shown which is therefore open to interpretation, or worse, mockery and ridicule? Or do the observant among us, who receive the data as shown as something tangible and therefore worthy of acceptance, give higher benefit to overall wellbeing of the society we all have to share?
But first, what is the meaning of observant?
From the Macquarie Encyclopedic Dictionary; 1. observing or regarding attentively: watchful. 2. quick to notice or perceive: alert. 3. careful in the observing of a law, custom, or the like.
And what is the meaning of sceptic?
From the same Dictionary; 1. one who questions the validity or authenticity of something to be purporting to be knowledge: 2. one who mistrusts and maintains a doubting pessimistic attitude towards people, plan, ideas etc: 3. one who doubts the truth of the Christian religion , or of important elements of it: 4. a member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, or any thinker, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.
So what we have according to the Macquarie Dictionary, is two different methods of thinking when presented with the same data. We have the observer who readily grasps the data and accepts its implications and the sceptic who discounts the authenticity of the data while doubting its importance as of evidentiary value.
How does this twin system of analysing co-exist in a so called learned society or culture? In my opinion it can't! Once upon a time it was common practice to value that which was obvious and readily recognized as being of benefit to that socieity or culture, for example; education is traditionally based on what others have observed and accepted as the norm. However, that kind of thinking is no longer dominant, and has been replaced steadily, and through stealth, by the sceptical way of thinking in our educational establishments. But is this a bad thing?
Should one be a sometime sceptic, or a complete sceptic?
I believe that life cannot be seen simply in black and white issues. There are many gray areas out there that tend to escape the attention of serious study due to the predominant attitude of scepticism within our so called Main Stream Media, and educational institutions. And for lack of serious scientific study we as a species are missing out on what we should all be learning about. Even the most primitive tribes are able to adequately (as far as they are concerned) explain their reason for existence on this planet which leaves those among us, and who would wish to remain as sceptics when pondering such questions, as ignorant about life as they believe those primitive tribes are.
No, I don't think being a sceptic is conducive to advancing our culture or anyone else's for that matter, because scepticism can lead to a closed mind and the kind of arrogance which in turn produces the thinking that is now so dominant among the liberal left.
Which leaves the observer model as the kind of thinking that is truly conducive to elevating mankind above his animalistic urges. Conservatism is based on the observer model which is careful observation for that which works within a society and that which doesn't. While I champion observation = conservative values which have been proven to maintain a cohesive society, I do not accept that all conservative values should be endorsed without careful observation as to the effect its implementation has on society in general. Not all values suit all societies or cultures, especially Islamic cultures.
The thing to remember in championing conservative values to those who deny their legitimacy is that the sceptical way of thinking has proven to be self destructive as the 20th Century so readily identifies. Conservative values endure because conservative values have been proven to work over hundreds of years of civilization.
I am an observer. I hope you are too!
No comments:
Post a Comment