"Characters can be ignorant, but the author can't say the three magic words 'I don't know.'"
One funny exception to this is Mark Twain's "A Medieval Romance," which you can read here:
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1537/
Just scroll down and read the last three paragraphs.
Why would anyone think that the only way to show you're not the father is to declare you're a woman?
Sounds like someone's beliefs aren't paying rent.
Or maybe it's a matter of existential risk? If there's a 1/10 chance of him being horribly wrong, then I don't particularly blame him for not testing it. I might believe <insert explosive tidbit here> quite thoroughly, but not want to test it when the explosive is directly in front of me.
I'd happily test it from behind a blast wall, though.
I can see if the topic is controversial among those whose standards of evidence I respect, and if it is, I can refrain from judgment on the grounds that if there were strong evidence either way, there would be no controversy.
Now with regards to "we still don't even know what kind of food is best to eat!" That is a question that we do know! ... You will find the answer from a professional dietician/nutritionist (whatever your country calls them) that's spent about 3 years studying to find out the answer in all its complexity.
Are you asserting that there is no controversy among credentialed nutritionists about what kind of food is best to eat?
Are you asserting that there is no controversy among credentialed nutritionists about what kind of food is best to eat?
Nutritionist here. The protected word is "dietician", literally anyone can legitimately call themselves "nutritionists", whereas you actually have to have some relevant credentials before you're a credited dietician.
As a nutritionist, my professional opinion is that bricks are quite healthy, due to their high iron content.
Only make up hasty generalizations when it's entertaining to do so.
Also: if it gets you internet points.
Internet points are constantly ruining my subreddits.
Or explaining to someone how clothing is a tool that changes people's perceptions of you, and by studying the basics of fashion and aesthetics, you can achieve more of your aims in life. Yes, it shouldn't be like that in an ideal world. But we're not in that ideal world - fashion and aesthetics matter and people react to it.
For the record, I don't think a world in which people were not influenced by aesthetic concerns would be an ideal one (or even fairly good).
I think that perhaps it would be interesting if you assumed the above was referring to being unconsciously influenced by aesthetic concerns. If it doesn't go through your mind that you're subconsciously passing judgement on someone, how are you supposed to evaluate its validity, and mitigate it (if necessary)?
I think that I'm quite possibly taking a hypothetical way too far, but in an ideal world, everyone would only be able to be consciously influenced by aesthetic concerns, and not subconsciously. Hypothetically.
Which is entirely perpendicular to your point, but see the first line in the above paragraph, so whatever.
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Fight Club demonstrates this perfectly (even more perfectly in the book, when it's made clear that the main characters entire goal is to get a woman). Men who feel pointless, empty, marginalized by the system they live in are willing to do anything to achieve high-status and a sense of purpose. This so closely resembles terrorism that I would be more interested in terrorist groups and acts that can't be traced to some sort of status or purpose-seeking, as I imagine they are few and far between.
Fight club doesn't demonstrate anything, because it didn't happen (on account of being a story).