Like most small-bore, pretentious men, he shows the tendency to strike an emotional attitude and then, using that prejudice as a base, draw vast, unreasonable, philosophical conclusions.
— John D. MacDonald
The more closed the mind, the more open the mouth.
I encountered this phenomenon on Facebook recently.
A philosopher posted an op-ed he'd published in Newsweek that argued for adding philosophy to elementary school curriculums.
Philosophy will improve kids' ability to think critically, he promised.
"Absolutely not," one comment said. "The ability to think critically is not philosophy. Philosophy is not meant for everyone and is totally not needed for most."
No evidence. No source. Just bluster.
An argument like the one offered in the comment is known among philosophers as an argument from incredulity. It holds:
I don't know a thing to be true;
therefore, it must be false.
therefore, it must be false.
Arguments from incredulity are moronic, but we hear them all the time:
- "Vaccines can't be safe. Nobody should get one."
- “Humans could not have evolved from a single cell. Darwin is bunk."
- "No one would work if the government paid him not to. Socialism is wrong."
- "Immigrants shouldn't be allowed here. They're not like Americans."
- "It's always cold here in North Dakota. Global warming is bullshit."
- "Philosophy is not meant for everyone and is totally not needed for most."
People prone to arguments from incredulity can't imagine that many true things are unimaginable. (Take, for example, that brick walls aren't really solid; that we're moving through space at 1.3 million miles an hour; or that matter is essentially mental.
Only buffoons believe they do.
Condemnant quo non intellegunt, as the Romans said.
"They condemn that which they do not understand."
