On the other hand, those supposedly credible persons who spread falsities and inaccuracies –if not lies– take all the credit. That is why we humans are so fortunate to be gifted with mental faculties to discern things that should be or should not be. But isn’t it that hard data is prescribed and narrowed down by critical thinking and other related realms of impartial thought? Hard data alone should not be considered as sola scriptura. Yes, it is true that a case usually wins by an overwhelming quantity of physical evidence and even witnesses. In a world that is wanting of intellectual arguments, hitting on a person’s scholarship –or lack of it– should never be highlighted by an applause nor should be sided upon. The foregoing examples are, indeed, a barrage of poor reasoning. Some instances of common diatribes: “You are a nobody how dare you say such things!” “Do you even have a Master’s degree to lay such claims?” “Have you won awards to make yourself known as an iconoclast?” “We would rather resort to scholars and other published greats than waste our time weighing the merits of your blog!” It comes but as an unconscionable delight to a person (who has no more good argument to extract from his wonderful comprehension of events) who disagrees with another individual to attack the latter’s credibility, especially when the former is already overwhelmed by offenses from his foe. Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |