Scribes and Pharisees?

It seems to be as easy as rolling out of bed in the morning to counter criticism of opinions by attacking the person voicing that criticism.  It may be by referring to some position that person may have held at some point which may run contrary to their own criticism -- making them hypocrites -- or the counter may be based on association with others whose motives are ostensibly contaminated by self-interest or some brand of idology.

This kind of name-calling, no matter how satisfying it may feel to the person calling the names, doesn't really help clarify matters.  The intellectual falacies in these defenses and attacks have been well known for centuries, and they are no more valid just because they are put to use in support of a particular cause.

In this day, though, unlike those past centuries, a growing mass of people are adequately educated to see through such flimsy dodges and are thus being increasingly impatient and intolerant of their use.  If you want to see your cause go down in flames, whatever it may be, just keep using those rusty weapons!  Like a bayonet charge in the age of the machine gun, running off at the mouth in the age of the internet is doomed to defeat...

What do you think about theories of climate change?  Economics and finance?  Health and nutrition?  War and peace?  Are you interested in achieving progress for humanity?  Or just making noise?  No one likes noise makers (except perhaps as entertainment!)...

The only intelligent way to proceed.is to abandon those age-old, greasy tactics and instead investigate the truth of every matter of concern to you objectively, independently, dispassionately.  Identify the facts and assumptions, both what you think you know and what others may claim.  Validate the assumptions, no matter their source.  Evaluate their relationship to reality -- are they sound or speculative?  Are they built on good observation?  Are they consistent with all available data?  Do they make sense?

Remember, this investigation cannot be adjusted one way for views you already hold and another way for views advanced by people you don't like.  Think about it -- is it more important to stick to what you believe, or to attach yourself to what is true?  If you happen to have glommed on to something you found attractive but was actually flawed, is there any honor in sticking to the flaw?

As Baha'u'llah wrote, it is essential that one "so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth."

That is the standard.  And it's a personal standard, not a political or philosophical standard.  It's about freeing your judgment from prejudice or ignorance, seeing the world as it is rather than how you may have thought it to be.  A doctor cannot make a good diagnosis without examining the patient to see exactly what is going on -- can anyone else make a diagnosis about what's right or wrong in the world without examining the situation as it actually is?
But some of the better-educated people I have talke with over the years hold this standard to be impracticable.  They say it's contrary to "human nature."  This perception supports cynicism, the idea that they're all a bunch of frauds, that some approximation of truth can be found by coming up half-way in between contending factions because none of them are any more or less valid than any other.

Talk about an assumption!  This is the standard we try to apply in our legal system, in scientific investigation, in every question of fairness and justice.  We try to get to the "ground truth," rather than sticking to ignorant first impressions or prejudices.  So, contrary to the idea that public figures and public debate must always be dominated by the half-truth, by spin, by ideology and by interest, people can and should put such childish squabbles where they belong and act like adults.

And perhaps let the people with the big mouths know they're not fooling anyone, that they should be ashamed of themselves for their foolishness, and that if they're serious about anything they should start acting like responsible, mature adults.

Put the facts and assumptions out there for everyone to see.  In the end, there can be widely differing views on issues based intelligently and fairly on differing assumptions, and it's up to leaders to choose the ones they find stronger.  But more on that in later posts...