In the old days, you were a heretic if you expressed
any doubt about the cosmology espoused by your friendly neighbourhood priest
or vicar or rabbi or whatever. Scripture told us where we came from, who was
responsible, what was nice, and what was naughty. If you disagreed, you’d be
socially ostracized at best, and burnt at the stake or beheaded if you didn’t learn
to keep your mouth shut and start singing from the prescribed songsheet with the rest of the great unwashed.
The moral of the story? People in positions of authority don't like independent thinkers. And in case I need to spell out the obvious, it's because their authority is derived from mass consensus.
Nowadays of course, the attitude towards modern heretics is mercifully more civilized. Burning them at the stake is generally frowned upon (though some high-profile heretics have been known to end up dead under mysterious circumstances from time to time even in these more laissez-faire times). We normally just exchange pained expressions with other non-heretics and do some social ostracizing with the odd bit of ridicule and scoffs of derision thrown in for good measure, don't we?
Our esteemed 21st century custodians of knowledge and wisdom are our scientists. They may still wear distinguished white frocks, but they now use the formidable
Scientific Method - backed up by the Peer Review Process - to form our contemporary cosmology. These are very reliable tools, don't ya know (but sssh, don't say too much about the replicability crisis, or the peer review crisis, okay? You'll be cruising for an intellectual bruising...) and have a reassuringly consistent relationship with observable reality. Scientists tend to routinely kick ten tons of shite out of scripture and 'olde worlde' beliefs in that department, and have been doing so for centuries. It is of course ultimately thanks to them that I am able to communicate with you, dear reader, through the mixed blessings of mass communication and social media. For this and a number of other reasons, I have a great deal of respect for science and scientists.
This is, however, tinged with a robust and incorrigable dose of scepticism.
The trouble with our dear, lovable modern-day scientists is that on the whole (with a few honourable exceptions) they are either too trusting of their superiors and benefactors, or just simply not badass enough to hold onto their integrity in the face of people with lots of money, power, guns and an agenda. Most of them are desperate for cash. Or peer recognition. Or tenure. Or all of the above. No doubt, it's difficult to see beyond these things if your life's work is at stake. Anyone in a position to provide the above academic mana, and you'd be amazed how broadly and flexibly applications of the scientific method can suddenly be interpreted by people with big brains. Think about it.
Hark! Do I hear gasps of shock, outrage and indignation at this latest heretical point? Do I hear cries for evidence and proof?
Sorry to disappoint you guys. It's not gonna be that kind of blog. Sure, I may occasionally toss you the odd link chock full of overwhelming evidence from some much more dedicated and accomplished alternative researcher (i.e. fellow 21st century heretic) than myself here and there to chew on. There's plenty of it out here in heretic country. But see, the beauty of heresy is that it's first and foremost "an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted”. I'm not a journalist with a mission to spoon-feed you common sense. Go and check it out for yourself if you're iconoclastic enough to dare, or alternatively, feel free to keep right on outsourcing all your opinions and worldviews to fellow fallible human beings who - if they are ambitious enough - invariably end up getting funded by people who are known control freaks and unscrupulous sociopaths.
Disagree all you want. That's heresy for you. I haven't even got started yet. *grins*
Here's a provocative parting heresy to challenge you with until next time: He who pays the piper calls the truth.
