Thursday, February 25, 2010

The Standards of Proof

If I was being less charitable I could have included this entry in my forthcoming guide Traddies Ancient and Modern- a handbook for the seriously syncophantic. The entry would have commenced;
The Common Blog Traddie. Common habitat: darkened incense laden rooms with an over decoration of ecclesiastical paraphenalia contrasting with the latest computer technology. Basic feeding habits often nutritionally compromised by ever spiralling broadband bills.

In the last week there's been some pretty fierce accusation levelled concerning the ceasing of a particular's orders ministry in a particular city in the Northern Hemisphere. One expects there's more to the story than the published statement that they were withdrawing at their own initiative. The natural mind of the common blog traddie is, of course, to smell a rat. And then the blogfest starts. Accusations fly against the diocese and whoever else might get in the way in cyberspace. This continues unabated despite the fact that (1) there is no objective proof of connivance on the part of the diocese and (2) the particular institute has issued quite a clear statement. It's quite obvious that they want it left at that.

It worries me that what's accepted as fact by much of the general blogging populous is pretty low in the 'burden of proof' stakes. I'm not suggesting that we should all run around supplying detailed footnotes (Heavens no- the truth might get in the way of a decent bit of purple prose!) but rather that we often accept interpretations of events and actions at their face value and repeat them rather than actually going to the original sources and making a balanced judgement. Of course the argument can go in the other direction. I have no doubt that one of the greatest tools of the Devil is his (or her) ability to confuse an issue by disinformation. After all the first words from the serpent's mouth were a question trying to re-spin what God had actually said to Adam and Eve. Strange that this seems to be the principle rhetorical device of NEWCHURCH. I wonder where they learned it from? Ahem!



  2. Many thanks for your link. I'll keep an eye on the blog.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.