The Dangers of an Open Mind

... include time-wasting, I suspect among others. Every now and again I get seduced into worrying, in the sense that a terrier worries a toy, over something I have long since concluded an opinion about - shaking it about, chewing it and throwing it up and down and finishing with something more ragged but no more productive than it was before I started. This happens every time there is a ludicrous news report about the discovery of some ancient manuscript that proves Jesus was a mushroom, or something of the sort, and yesterday I used up far too much time chasing down pointless climate-change hares. Is what I think really the case? Does what this sceptic say have any validity to it? And unsurprisingly, hours later, I conclude it doesn't and that, in this as in other areas of human thought which are amenable to evidence, there is a reason why there is a consensus. 

Not for the first time, I wonder about the nature of contrarian thought - as someone who is something of a contrarian myself. I am a natural sceptic, but not what I would term an irrational sceptic - that is, I'm not inclined to dismiss the good faith of the source of the evidence unless there's a good reason to do so. The climate-change sceptics I've read certainly seem convinced, and often angrily convinced, that those who they disagree with have an investment in the 'hoax', although they're often unable to define what that interest is. Of course as contentious issues progress it becomes more likely that such interests will have an impact: companies providing renewable energy, or manufacturing wind turbines, for instance, have a stake in the debate. That's what capitalism is like; it shouldn't be a surprise, and doesn't affect the validity of data, only the balance of power and publicity within actual circumstances of a controversy. It is also likely that scientists or commentators who have a particular viewpoint will find themselves targeted by those who do have a pecuniary interest in their arguments; but it is not usually the money that makes the case in the first place. Still, if you adopt a contrarian standpoint, you have to account for the fact that most reputable commentators disagree with you, and alleging contamination by self-interest means you don't have to grapple with evidence which may be rather better than yours. 

Instead I become more and more convinced that psychology plays the major role in this, though it would take more knowledgeable souls than me to lay the process out. If I am a sceptic it's probably due to a sense of difference and separation from the mainstream that goes back to my childhood; but if my scepticism operates within certain boundaries it's probably because my life has generally treated me rather well and given me little reason to take the view that other people are generally motivated by venal considerations to the extent that it affects arguments about matters of fact (as opposed, for instance, to personal relationships). It makes you wonder what kind of lives contrarians have led.