Diz o NYT: "quem desconfia do governo é maluco, então pare de pensar racionalmente".
The essay, by Times magazine columnist Maggie Koerth-Baker, implicitly suggests the public should immediately halt speculation once law enforcement officials “leak” information intended to shape our perceptions. No matter that these leaks are not the same thing as evidence presented at trial, that the leaks themselves serve an agenda, and that law enforcement has a long history of attempting to persuade the public of false narratives.
No matter that the latter is a practice repeatedly, if often belatedly, chronicled by the Times itself.
Science Orders You:
"Stop Thinking Rationally".
The author goes on to say that “recent scientific research” tells us that people who believe there’s more to a story may actually accept several competing theories as plausible. And because they are open to competing theories, they’re basically wacky. Such an ecumenical orientation to mysteries, akin to tolerating various conflicting religious faiths, is supposed to show that there’s something wrong with you. However, another study might find that those who prefer pat explanations from the authorities are equally irrational.
"Stop Thinking Rationally".
The author goes on to say that “recent scientific research” tells us that people who believe there’s more to a story may actually accept several competing theories as plausible. And because they are open to competing theories, they’re basically wacky. Such an ecumenical orientation to mysteries, akin to tolerating various conflicting religious faiths, is supposed to show that there’s something wrong with you. However, another study might find that those who prefer pat explanations from the authorities are equally irrational.
