I had a conversation recently with a young man about the topic of climate change. I was curious to know what his thoughts were. His response took me by surprise: instead of explaining what he thought about the subject, he launched into speech that escalated into a broad condemnation of society and people who "refused to believe the obvious."
I decided to let it go and started to talk about generalities and his college experience, but he continued on by saying, "you are a pretty smart guy. Why do you not agree with the vast numbers of scientists who have reached the conclusion that man is polluting the world's atmosphere and we all will pay dearly for it?"
My question, I explained, was really directed toward the thought process that brought you to this conclusion. I was not challenging your conclusion, but rather I was curious to know how you got there.
For example, global temperature measurements are controversial by themselves. There is no automatic correlation between these measurements and any particular cause since sun activity, ocean currents, even tidal forces influence the measurements. To correlate these measurements to some types of human activity is a mental leap that short-circuits the clear-eyed inquiry into whether one "believes" this conclusion to be warranted by the facts.
This young man had adopted an ideology put forth by others in lieu of his own investigation. Predictably, his response to questions about the subject was anger at the questioner, not simply an explanation of what led him to the conclusion.
It seems that the adoption of an ideological answer to real or imagined questions about science, social justice, status of life, poverty, and a host of other issues, shuts down the thinking process and leads the proponent of the ideology into a defense posture that initially arises from anger toward those who might question the validity of the conclusions. The unsuspecting and vulnerable student, in this case, had not been taught to parse ideas, but rather was told that these questions had been settled by others more qualified than he, and that anyone who might question the conclusions was just ignorant, and should even be physically attacked or discredited.
What does all of this mean?
Many of our prominent (and publicly funded) learning institutions are now openly promoting ideological answers to the great questions of freedom, justice, private property, right to life, role of government, history, and many others. The inquiry process has been hijacked and replaced with a cookie-cutter set of explanations for every aspect of life.
I urge you, seekers, to teach your children to "test the spirits" and draw their own conclusions based on their own understanding and not accept the first answer that is thrown at them.
