<HTML>Garret writes:
"You have commented yourself (in private correspondence) how reading the alternative works left you with the distinct impression that professional or "orthodox" scholars are all close-minded buffoons, wedded to narrow visions and arrogantly conducting an inquisition to crush alternative views. They were motivated above all to keep their jobs. I hope this captures your former impression accurately;"
Yes, Garret, this is exactly right, and - where such portrayals are truly unfair - I see such caricatures as having not one, but two effects.
1. The most obvious thing is that they make the establishment look bad, in ways like you paraphrase me as saying above.
2. But there's something else that happens. The assualt concurrently makes the alternativist people using this method to look like martyrs out to right a wrong, reveal gross injustices despite insurmountable odds, or heroes in other words.
A moral playing field is therefore introduced, and defined. Along the way we, the underinformed people are not only introduced to an intellectual Sherrif of Nottingham, but to Robin Hood. When consciously abused, this tactic is wholly dependent on the trusting good nature of the reading audience: their reflexive tendency to extend the benefit of the doubt to strangers (in this cases the self-appointed heroes) is exploited.
I won't say that I think ALL such attacks are intended to create this effect, for surely in some cases the alternativists will probably be right to cite examples of close-mindedness and hard-headedness. The real question becomes if, how and when one can determine when this actually does amount to exploitation.
I think there is such evidence and I think it is very jading.</HTML>
