|
It is certainly wise to withhold support for any idea until you have examined the evidence. There is plenty of nut-cakery, corporate misinformation and passionately argued nonsense out there. I agree that the middle ground is a good starting place if I don't happen to have any substantial knowledge on an issue.
When I do lean strongly one way or another, I think it's a great idea to purposefully seek out the best arguments from the side opposite to the one I find myself on. At the very least, it means I might gain a better understanding of why people hold the views they hold, and may be able to see exactly where the misunderstanding or bad information is coming from. (Who knows, I might even change my mind, though this is really rare, and usually happens gradually, not in a sudden facepalm slap of enlightenment.)
I don't feel like I know enough to argue a position until I can articulate the other view in such a way that my opponent agrees I'm not attacking a straw man.
That said, the middle ground isn't always the place to be. Sometimes one side is really and truly wrong. I feel very comfortable saying that holocaust deniers, young earth creationists, anti-vaccine activists and moon landing hoax claimers have got it wrong. Human-caused global warming? I'm still catching up and have a lot of reading to do, but I wouldn't bet against it. (HFCS? Isn't gonna kill me, but I sure don't like it much.)
Now, just how many directions is this thread going to go!
|