Comment: Here's how it works ...

(See in situ)


Here's how it works ...

... (a) an event happens, and then (b) there is some sort of "official" theory as to what happened, and then (c) a certain portion of the population worships authority and will accept any theory that anyone in "authority" will provide, and (d) some other segment of the population will have a similar, but contrary knee-jerk reaction and question everything that the authority provides as their theory, and (e) some within the populace will not accept the "official theory" at face value, but will weigh that theory with the known or thought-to-be-known facts and will accept the theory ONLY IF it is consistent with the facts, but will question the theory IF THE THEORY DOES NOT SEEM CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

It is at this point that those who bought the story hook, line, and sinker -- without any critical thought process whatsoever -- will begin to demand that those who are using an INDEPENDENT verification process (to decide whether or not they will accept the "official" theory) must come up with their own theory if they are questioning the official theory. But questioning evidence is not the same as presenting counter evidence. If this were true, then all courtrooms would demand that the defense present a better theory than the prosecution. This is how the Italian system works, but not the American system.

It is up to those who support a given theory to defend their theory and it is up to others to question the theory. But for some psychological reason, a few people are incapable of understanding that questioning a theory -- even one presented by perceived "authority" -- is a necessary part of the process IF ONE IS TO USE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF PROOF.

Of course, one could just accept any crazy story that some government employee comes up with, but history has shown that it ain't exactly a smart thing to do.