Scientists propose hypotheses. If a hypothesis does not fit the facts, scientists change the hypothesis. Apologists know their hypotheses are correct. If a hypothesis does not fit the facts, apologists change the facts.” — Matthew P. Barnson
Those who know me well know that I despise apologetics. I think they are deceptive, disputing any finding contrary to their foregone conclusion. Scientists may argue in favor of their conclusions, but there’s an important distinction: a scientist must be willing to admit he’s wrong. An apologist cannot.
As I broaden my intellectual horizons with age, I’m coming to realize that this kind of foregone-conclusion argumentation is not exclusive to the religious field. In politics, it is “partisanship”. In corporations, it is often “public relations” oriented towards a we-never-admit-fault mentality. And if you are on the other side of an apologist’s argument, even if you are arguing a scientific view, you can be called a “polemicist“, the inverse of an apologist.
It’s a funny sort of conundrum to me: as our knowledge grows, so too does the stable of “facts” we can call upon to support any position. If we ignore — or are ignorant of — just a few, we can justify heinous positions with ease. And yet no one person can hope to be a repository of the whole of humanity’s knowledge.
But wouldn’t it be neat if one could?