What you need to think about is what consequence any of this has to your life. The reality is, like the moon landing, it means absolutely nothing to the decisions you’ll be making whether it’s real or not. Like holocaust denial, the only reason people make one claim rather than another is to be seen as a certain type of person.
Like holocaust denial, the only reason people make one claim rather than another is to be seen as a certain type of person.
That’s true in the same sense that I don’t stab people who cut in line because I don’t want to be seen as a psychopath, and I don’t say that 2+2=5 because I don’t want to be seen as an idiot.
What you need to think about is what consequence any of this has to your life. The reality is, like the moon landing, it means absolutely nothing to the decisions you’ll be making whether it’s real or not. Like holocaust denial, the only reason people make one claim rather than another is to be seen as a certain type of person.
To me honestly it appears that the consequences of such beliefs are relevant. If the WTC went through a controlled demolition, this affects the standard view of what happened next, and should influence your beliefs on politics and terrorism at least. This can be relevant to evaluate what to expect from the future and should influence some future decisions. The moon landing is less relevant, but it still says something on the limit of what humanity can achieve under a strong pressure, and can be a factor if extreme conditions manifest in the future (e.g. a huge impending natural disaster). Finally, the holocaust is one of the strongest arguments against dictatorship and expressions of racism. If it didn’t happen, your priors against a dictatorship being a good form of government should be modified.
There are indirect consequences. Believing nonsense forces one to compartmentalise at best and contaminates one’s whole epistemology at worst. Many facts I am/was interested in have practically zero direct consequences to my life. Consider the consequences of knowing about
Believing nonsense forces one to compartmentalise at best and contaminates one’s whole epistemology at worst.
False dichotomy. Not believing in the truth does not imply believing nonsense. It’s always possible to say “meh, I have no idea what to believe and the 5 days it’d take to decide probably aren’t worth it” and move on.
(For instance… which do you believe is a better model of the universe, M-theory or loop quantum gravity?)
Agnosticism indeed doesn’t imply believing nonsense. But being agnostic about a question which can be easily decided on evidential grounds has similar consequences as believing nonsense, compartmentalisation-wise. For example, it requires believing that it would take five days to arrive to a reasonable conclusion, which belief may be false. On the other hand, for the particular question asked by the OP the five days may not be unreasonably long, so you may have a point.
which do you believe is a better model of the universe, M-theory or loop quantum gravity?
Loop quantum gravity. (I don’t imply that this is a question one should have a definite opinion about.)
What you need to think about is what consequence any of this has to your life. The reality is, like the moon landing, it means absolutely nothing to the decisions you’ll be making whether it’s real or not. Like holocaust denial, the only reason people make one claim rather than another is to be seen as a certain type of person.
That’s true in the same sense that I don’t stab people who cut in line because I don’t want to be seen as a psychopath, and I don’t say that 2+2=5 because I don’t want to be seen as an idiot.
To me honestly it appears that the consequences of such beliefs are relevant. If the WTC went through a controlled demolition, this affects the standard view of what happened next, and should influence your beliefs on politics and terrorism at least. This can be relevant to evaluate what to expect from the future and should influence some future decisions. The moon landing is less relevant, but it still says something on the limit of what humanity can achieve under a strong pressure, and can be a factor if extreme conditions manifest in the future (e.g. a huge impending natural disaster). Finally, the holocaust is one of the strongest arguments against dictatorship and expressions of racism. If it didn’t happen, your priors against a dictatorship being a good form of government should be modified.
There are indirect consequences. Believing nonsense forces one to compartmentalise at best and contaminates one’s whole epistemology at worst. Many facts I am/was interested in have practically zero direct consequences to my life. Consider the consequences of knowing about
evolution / origin of life
quantum mechanics
Big Bang
simulation hypothesis
history of the Roman empire
almost all philosophy
...
False dichotomy. Not believing in the truth does not imply believing nonsense. It’s always possible to say “meh, I have no idea what to believe and the 5 days it’d take to decide probably aren’t worth it” and move on.
(For instance… which do you believe is a better model of the universe, M-theory or loop quantum gravity?)
Agnosticism indeed doesn’t imply believing nonsense. But being agnostic about a question which can be easily decided on evidential grounds has similar consequences as believing nonsense, compartmentalisation-wise. For example, it requires believing that it would take five days to arrive to a reasonable conclusion, which belief may be false. On the other hand, for the particular question asked by the OP the five days may not be unreasonably long, so you may have a point.
Loop quantum gravity. (I don’t imply that this is a question one should have a definite opinion about.)
Upvoted for the first two sentences, not sure what to make of the last one.