Only from a very odd perspective is there an 'evil debate' going on now. To understand why the very notion is a mistake is the first step.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
This old (1997) Ronald Bailey essay feeds into it: http://reason.com/archives/1997/07/01/origin-of-the-specious/ … The issues it raises are important.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
Egalitarian esotericism is the ultimate poison, because it demands a decision between universal idiocy and socially-intolerable truths. ...
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
... No philosopher can be a fool, just to be good. For the populace, in contrast, that is almost a necessity.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
To misquote Churchill, reality is so precious it has to be shrouded in a cloak of obscurity. ...
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Outsideness
... It is a democratic indecency to publicly ask a natural philosopher what they believe. (It will be things the people cannot bear.)
2 replies 2 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
"If you understood, you would be driven insane. (And it is no part of sound research to drive the masses insane.)"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Outsideness
'Democratic science' is either cynical lies, or collective insanity. Deduct the democracy, and then carry on.
1 reply 2 retweets 5 likes
If the people could bear the truth, they would not be 'the people'.
-
-
Replying to @Outsideness
@Outsideness If the mass could move itself, it would be a force.0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.