Question everything, within reason. Any academic of values should take reasonable arguments (for and against something) into consideration. Boxing someone off against a hard-line of “values” projects bigotry. (I don’t want to say that was your intent, but that can be a downstream effect.)
For example, I personally believe chiropractors practice pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting chiropractic care has value. So, in my opinion, it’s possible that chiropractic treatments do something, but it more likely to be a placebo.
I say as an academic that it is our job to question everything and to find the answers. If academic consensus cannot be relied upon, then nothing can. Why would you think academics do not take reasonable arguments into consideration? (this is a rhetorical question) Stating that no academic of value doubts the existence of Jesus is a fact grounded in reality. This is not a religious statement but an acknowledgment of historical evidence. If we cannot agree on basic facts, then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, and societies like America will continue to descend into anti-intellectualism.
For example, I personally believe chiropractors practice pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting chiropractic care has value. So, in my opinion, it’s possible that chiropractic treatments do something, but it more likely to be a placebo.
This analogy is not applicable to a factual statement about someone’s existence. The existence of a historical figure like Jesus is supported by evidence and scholarly consensus, whereas the efficacy of chiropractic care is not comparable to established historical facts.
Question everything, within reason. Any academic of values should take reasonable arguments (for and against something) into consideration. Boxing someone off against a hard-line of “values” projects bigotry. (I don’t want to say that was your intent, but that can be a downstream effect.)
For example, I personally believe chiropractors practice pseudoscience. However, there is quite a bit of anecdotal evidence suggesting chiropractic care has value. So, in my opinion, it’s possible that chiropractic treatments do something, but it more likely to be a placebo.
I say as an academic that it is our job to question everything and to find the answers. If academic consensus cannot be relied upon, then nothing can. Why would you think academics do not take reasonable arguments into consideration? (this is a rhetorical question) Stating that no academic of value doubts the existence of Jesus is a fact grounded in reality. This is not a religious statement but an acknowledgment of historical evidence. If we cannot agree on basic facts, then meaningful discussion becomes impossible, and societies like America will continue to descend into anti-intellectualism.
This analogy is not applicable to a factual statement about someone’s existence. The existence of a historical figure like Jesus is supported by evidence and scholarly consensus, whereas the efficacy of chiropractic care is not comparable to established historical facts.