This kind of immunizing strategy is often combined with an
implicit, or not-so-implicit, attack on the character of the critic. A quotation
from Shakespeare's Hamlet (after the appearance of the
ghost of Hamlet's father) can be used to lend the ad hominem attacks a little
gravitas: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy.”
See? Your philosophy is rather
foolish. It fails to acknowledge that reality is far richer than your narrow,
naturalistic, scientistic worldview can appreciate. You're an arrogant
know-it-all who thinks that you—or at least science—can supply all the answers.
Show a little humility!
Nowadays, the accusation that someone is unfairly
discriminating against others is one of the most potent you can make. No one
likes to think of themselves as a bigot, or to be associated with bigots. So
dressing up your charge of scientism as an accusation of unjust discrimination
is likely to be doubly effective. If someone persists in presenting what looks
like a credible scientific threat against what you believe, try asserting, or,
better, implying that they are an intellectual bigot—that their scientistic
worldview manifests nothing more than a nasty, unimaginative, and irrational
bias against people who hold beliefs such as your own. Try claiming that, just
like women or ethnic minorities, you're being victimized.
You, by contrast, will now appear wonderfully humble, modest,
and open to new ideas and perspectives.
Clearly, you are also far wiser and more “spiritual” than your narrow-minded
critics, for you appreciate that the world extends far beyond your own, or even
science's, limited horizon. Who would want to side with such arrogant,
scientistic oppressors against the humble and wise?
NONSCIENTIFIC
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น