Here's my interpretation of Adams' "won/lost" take on this: I think it adds evidence to my thesis that one of the primary manifestations of whatever makes Leftists Leftists is that they begin with the subconscious axiom that they are morally "good".
See, what one would consider a normal reaction from Scott might be something like, "It turns out that, despite what I thought were my best efforts to find the truth, I was in error. Because of that error, I supported positions and advocated actions that got people injured and even killed. And I am not excused from moral fault in this because the truth was knowable. Millions knew it, many told me about it, and I rejected it on unsound grounds. I acted immorally."
But then, that simple analysis and conclusion would contradict the axiom, would it not? Subconsciously, I'm certain, this whole line of argument is thrown out and some other plausible argument consistent with the axiom is substituted, concluding with, "You won."
Yeah totally. He even goes so far as to ascribe the "winning" of unvaxed as getting lucky based upon their irrational suspicion of the government and institutions. It's like he can't admit that it wasn't about winning but it was about a rational evaluation of evidence and a healthy skepticism informed by the past.
They "just got lucky" seems so asinine. That alone pretty much eliminates my respect for Adams as an intellectual. I guess that for all that other stuff he said that I thought was so insightful, he "just got lucky.,
The other very common, "go to" retcon is: "Yeah, it turned out I was incorrect, but I was correct based on information available at the time." No, MFers, there's nothing in any "science" or reasoning that ever forces you to say something incorrect. Ever.
Here's my interpretation of Adams' "won/lost" take on this: I think it adds evidence to my thesis that one of the primary manifestations of whatever makes Leftists Leftists is that they begin with the subconscious axiom that they are morally "good".
See, what one would consider a normal reaction from Scott might be something like, "It turns out that, despite what I thought were my best efforts to find the truth, I was in error. Because of that error, I supported positions and advocated actions that got people injured and even killed. And I am not excused from moral fault in this because the truth was knowable. Millions knew it, many told me about it, and I rejected it on unsound grounds. I acted immorally."
But then, that simple analysis and conclusion would contradict the axiom, would it not? Subconsciously, I'm certain, this whole line of argument is thrown out and some other plausible argument consistent with the axiom is substituted, concluding with, "You won."
And he's still "one of the good guys".
Yeah totally. He even goes so far as to ascribe the "winning" of unvaxed as getting lucky based upon their irrational suspicion of the government and institutions. It's like he can't admit that it wasn't about winning but it was about a rational evaluation of evidence and a healthy skepticism informed by the past.
They "just got lucky" seems so asinine. That alone pretty much eliminates my respect for Adams as an intellectual. I guess that for all that other stuff he said that I thought was so insightful, he "just got lucky.,
The other very common, "go to" retcon is: "Yeah, it turned out I was incorrect, but I was correct based on information available at the time." No, MFers, there's nothing in any "science" or reasoning that ever forces you to say something incorrect. Ever.