Keeping our Beliefs
I've mentioned many times before about sceptics
and their attitudes. One of the reasons that people are reluctant to accept
views that are outside of their accepted boundaries is that by doing so they
feel that, as it were, the walls will come down and the foundations of their
beliefs will be shot to pieces.
I remember the old-style communists of the 1950s and 1960s in England. They would read the ‘Daily Worker’ (later changed to the ‘Morning Star’) every day in order to find out what they should think on any subject. In this paper there was no distinction between news and comment, there was simply a view of the world that its readers (communist party members) were expected to abide by. To step outside of this presented a problem to the individual. If they question one view of the party then where does it stop? They would have to examine all the facts and consider all the viewpoints. It would be far more than an individual can cope with. Much easier is simply to toe the party line.
Sceptics and others of their ilk have a similar attitude. If they were to accept
that, for example, there is something in bio-feedback, then they would have
to examine acupuncture or light therapy and so on. I've mentioned before, and
will undoubtedly do so again, that what passes for scientific examination in
sceptics circles would be considered laughable in any other context. Here I'm
interested in examining the psychology, the ‘mind set’ of people who subscribe
to this sort of organisation.
Nowadays air travel is almost synonymous with terrorism. Terrorists, apparently,
only use airplanes There are two issues here. The first is a terrorist, presumably
a suicide candidate, who wants to blow up a plane in mid air. The second is
a repeat of the Sept 11th scenario, that is, crashing a plane into a building.
On the first issue, it is difficult to understand why this should be any more
of a concern than say, blowing up a crowded cinema. In terms of fear tactics
or the number of people killed a cinema would be a better target from the terrorists
point of view. On the second, I wonder if such a situation could really be repeated.
I think the crew and passengers would prevent a repeat of such a situation.
Instead of air marshals a better approach would be to equip the crew with capsicum
spray, and train them in its use.
The problem is similar to the one faced by die-hard communists and sceptics: if the US government accepted that terrorists blowing up cinemas or stadia was as much an issue as blowing up airlines, then where does this stop? Everyone going into a cinema would have to be searched. And what about people simply walking down a crowded street? The US government prefers to stick woodenly to its onslaught on the airline industry rather than admitting to the alternatives.
The irony is that the terrorists, or at least the religious fundamentalist ones, are even more wooden in their approach than the US government.
