question orthodoxy, including your own

Oh boy, I'm sure this is gonna get me some shoutdowns here... I posted this on my LJ initially...
------------
I have been thinking a lot lately about people who talk about "questioning authority" but lack a critical sense of questioning. That is, they trade one set of authorities for another, discounting authority merely because it's authority, not on the merits thereof.

I 100% agree that authority (I'm talking intellectual authority here) does not connote "Truth". In fact, ascribing certitude to a person due to their stature is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

And the funny thing is? As much as people say they're against the "system" and are "fighting authority" what happens in a lot of the papers of theirs? They cite the pre-eminent stature of individuals as if to prove that their points are correct. And yet this is the very same authority they claim to disavow. "The System" that confers titles and doctorates upon people.

In other words, you only buck the system when it suits your agenda.

Now, here's the other thing -- all too often people merely trade one authority for another. They don't take the time to question the things that they "know".

An example (albeit relatively simple and stupid):

Today I was looking up the oft-quoted claim of Francis Crick being inspired by LSD to discover the structure of DNA.

This is an excellent snopes thread regarding it.

Essentially the idea is pretty much bunk. It *might* be true, but more likely than not it's just a hokum story someone invented. Read the thread, it's interesting.

Point being: Now that I know this, I won't go around repeating what seems to be an urban myth, even though it sounds nice and good (and certainly "resonates" with those of us who HAVE had insights -- in fact, as someone pointed out, Kary Mullis, inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction technique in biochemistry (and won the Nobel Prize for it) HAS come out and said it was inspired by acid).

The reason I post this is because I know a lot of well-meaning people who are letting fear and paranoia control them regarding some things, specifically the "vaccinations"... And it's becoming a bit of a bothersome nuisance to me. There are certainly facts you can argue... for example, that the h1n1 vax isn't really test properly, or reliable, or that it's ineffective in certain populations, that the threat of h1n1 isn't as urgent as it seems. Those, I believe are valid. It might be that *currently* the threat of h1n1 isn't urgent, but down the line if people don't get vaccinated, it would be. Who knows.

Point being, that there are legitimate logical cases one could attempt to make in terms of tradeoff of cost and benefits for receiving the vaccination.

All too often, however, the arguments veer towards paranoid raving that goes beyond what is necessary or appropriate to the degree of concern warranted. There is, IMO, still no clear case of ethylmercury being the cause of autism, and in fact, funny thing... we've eliminated it from most vaccines and yet rates are STILL rising. Huh. Strange that.

One explanation which to me makes the most sense and is the simplest most obvious example: the reason autism rates have gone up isn't because we have more autism but that we're getting better at diagnosing it. It's become more at the center of our attention so we're more aware. We have standard testing being done now, whereas a decade ago, we didn't.

Now, I'm not saying necessarily that ethylmercury isn't a contributor, it may be a small part of a larger equation.

One thing that I found a bit questionable, BUT I admit I don't know the science well enough, is the claim on the CDC's ethylmercury/autism faq that we haven't actually tested ethylmercury, but rather Methylmercury, which they claim is "close enough".

I apologize, but that seems to me a bit bunk. They might be similar in structure, but that doesn't mean they have the same effects, and how can they make that claim if they haven't actually, you know... tested ethylmercury...

But here's the thing: I raise this question and it does bring a little suspicion on the veracity of their claims, but not all their claims just this one specific thing, and it does make it seems a bit disingenuous on their part. But I still don't see enough evidence to pander to the anti-vax crowd.

Now, the reason I mention this is: I'm a guy who would like to see us enter a new age harmonious existence with nature as much as the next (or maybe a little more, even though I might be a hypocrite about it, but I most assuredly would like to see our social form oriented more towards an ecologically sustainable one). That means my prejudices would SEEM to lie with the anti-vaxers. I remember when I heard the issue first probably due to Lisa Bonet not vaccinating her (and Kravitz's?) child. Of course the autism stuff wasn't brought into the picture at that time. Anyways, I was all like "Fuck Yeah!" It seemd a very libertarianish-hippie thing and I liked it. But doing research and thinking through the issue, I've decided that the claims just are a bit wrong, and of course the hyperbole around the issue makes it even harder to choke down.

And then I think of "California Uber Alles" and the line "Zen Fascists will control you, 100% natural, you will jog for the master race, and always wear the happy face"...

I guess what I'm saying is, even something seems right and good to you, and you hear "experts" telling you this... You should still examine it, because it might not be true. Don't just accept it because it "sounds good" to you and it "makes sense" with your worldview. I notice this... a tendency of people who claim to be "open-minded" but really they're not so much "open-minded" as they are "against the grain". And against the grain is good, IMO. We NEED to have a bit of a rebellious mindset towards authority. But against the grain and just following another grain means you're still merely following and jumping on someone else's train.

That's why I got a kick out of that XKCD comic with everyone on the train all thinking "look at that sheep"... towards everyone else.

We must strive as much as possible within our own frameworks to step outside the bounds of what we know/are comfortable with, but we should always realize that we ALL are sheep, even those of us with the most liberated consciousness. The moment you think you're above it all is the moment you're trapped. Because it means you can't approach your own thought processes from outside, and consciousness is the ability to step outside and reflect from an external perspective.

If you don't do that to your own thought processes, you are still not conscious, you aren't reflecting.