There is no average intelligence. "There is only the individual." Carl Jung

Either way, there are a number of serious - species-threatening or world-threatening - things that we might chose to be concerned about. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, if one were incapable of ranking threats in order of importance, by scale and potential immediate impact, then one could get lost in an endless ocean of potential problems, the end result of which would likely be that one paid little real attention to any of them.

That's what is happening here. You will list other problems in an attempt to sweep nukes under the rug, and once you feel you have accomplished that you will ignore both nukes and all the other problems you insist on listing. This is a very normal human pattern called "rationalization".

Usually we can get away with rationalizing and will muddle through somehow. What you're NOT getting is that such a sloppy system doesn't work when applied to technologies of such enormous scale, where one mistake equals game over.

Pertinently, a nuclear attack isn't imminent. — S

We have no way of knowing that. You're persistently making the same mistake pretty much the entire culture is making.

1) You're completely ignoring the threat of unintentional launches, a threat which I've attempted to document in other threads, evidence which you (and most of the rest of the culture too) have deliberately ignored.

2) You're assuming that we have full control of the nuclear weapons machinery. Such an assumption requires a willful ignoring of the history of humanity, where FUBAR has run rampant in countless situations.

3) You're assuming that a nuclear attack would be the result of a rational calculation, but then the mere existence of nuclear weapons proves convincingly that we are often not capable of rational calculations.

4) You're assuming that no leader will conclude that they are smarter than everyone else and can game the system and win, a pattern which has repeated itself countless times throughout human history.

My mistake is in assuming that all of the above can be cured through a process of reason. There is little evidence to support such an assumption, so I do agree I am guilty of wishful thinking fantasy.

What's going to happen instead is that the willful blindness articulated in this thread and across the culture will continue until it is blasted away by a real world detonation. We're going to have to see the million dead bodies rotting away in a flattened city to get this.

Hopefully it will be just one city, and that will be sufficient to wake us up. Or, it may instead just push us ever deeper in to denial. I have no idea on how that will play out.

You will list other problems in an attempt to sweep nukes under the rug — Jake

No, I'll observe that nukes are one of a number of existential threats. If we concentrate on one or all of them, that's what we will spend our lives doing. It may be called rationalisation by some, but it's just common sense. Yes, a global nuclear war could start without warning, but it probably won't. I can spend my life preparing for Armageddon, or I can just live my life in the knowledge that the unknown could interfere at any time, which has always been the case, and will always be the case. I choose to spend my retirement philosophising, not digging a deep bunker in the garden. Is that sweeping things under a rug? Maybe it is. Reality is full of rugs, with all manner of nastiness under them, from previous sweepings. :wink:

No, I'll observe that nukes are one of a number of existential threats. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, and by doing so successfully sweep all those threats under the rug where they can remain intellectual abstractions which won't impact us emotionally. Thus, we won't do anything about it. Thus, it will likely happen. You're doing a good job of articulating the group consensus which is the real threat.

Yes, a global nuclear war could start without warning, but it probably won't. — Pattern-chaser

There's a consistent longstanding pattern in human history where things go along pretty well for awhile, and then every so often we go bat shit crazy and start killing each other with wild abandon using any and every tool available. I would agree that nukes have sobered the great powers so far, but it's not credible to propose that a consistent longstanding pattern thousands of years old is now obsolete.

Our relationship with nuclear weapons is like playing a game of Russian roulette. Every day that passes is another pull of the trigger. You guys (and most of the rest of the culture including the intellectual elites) are arguing, "Hey, it's working out fine so far, so stop being hysterical."

The problem that philosophers in particular are having (the very people whose job it should be to destroy a blatantly false group consensus) is that we/they are incapable of looking at things simply and directly. Nuclear weapons are a gun in all of our mouths. A gun that could go off at any moment. A gun held by some of the least moral people on Earth. That's all there is to it. All these attempts to complicate the issue so as to demonstrate how clever we are just muddy the water.

I choose to spend my retirement philosophising, not digging a deep bunker in the garden. — Pattern-chaser

The thing is, you're NOT philosophizing. That's my whole point. And you're not alone, even the professional philosophers of highest stature are not philosophizing either, that is, they are not following reason where ever it leads. They and we are following reason where we want to go, to a parlor game which demonstrates our cleverness, which is not actually reason at all, but rather an emotional agenda.

Thus, my point again that philosophy does not involve above average intelligence. Imagine the philosophy professor who enters the classroom and sees that all his students have guns in their mouths. The professor decides the appropriate response is to proceed to give his lecture on what Socrates said about what Plato said about something almost nobody cares about at all.

This is what professional philosophers are doing. While the fate of modern civilization hangs in the balance on the edge of wobbling knife blade. This is not above average intelligence, but a form of madness.

I will add no further comments on this sub-sub-topic. :up: — Pattern-chaser

This time, I will try harder.

We have said what we have to say, several times. This sub-sub-thread is going nowhere.

This sub-sub-thread is going nowhere. — Pattern-chaser

It's going nowhere because my honorable fellow members along with the intellectual elites and most of the rest of society all insist that it not go anywhere.

Again, this illustrates that philosophers are not of above average intelligence, as they are taking the same approach as pretty much everyone else, ignore the threat, sweep it under the rug etc. I wouldn't say that philosophers are of less than average intelligence, but instead that it seems reasonable to have higher expectations of philosophers given that with their degrees and jobs etc they seem to be claiming to be experts on the use of reason.

If you're run out of things to say on the topic that's because you haven't given the subject very much thought, an obstacle which could be overcome with further discussion. There's plenty more that could be said which would be of a philosophical (and not political) nature. As example, see this thread which attempts to explore our relationship with knowledge.

I don't mind you calling this a sub-sub thread, but really we are on topic. The OP asked if philosophers are of above average intelligence, and I am replying to that question by making a case as to why they are not.

However, I would happily state that my fellow members here on the forum are more intelligent than the average professional academic philosophers, who seem impossible to engage on this topic at all, preferring I suppose to hide behind an "above it all" defense. Some of you have done your job of challenging my thesis. You've failed, but you have tried, and I thank you for that.

The great weaknesses in my thesis is that I keep trying to address the issue of nuclear weapons with reason, in spite of a mountain of evidence that suggests we aren't capable of reasoning our way out of the nuclear threat at this time. To degree I am frustrated it's my own fault for ignoring the evidence and stubbornly engaging in a wishful thinking fantasy.

If it's true that we can't reason our way out of this threat at this time, then sooner or later a bomb is going to go off and some city will be erased. That will likely be a pivotal moment. What is now an abstraction will become an in our face flesh and blood reality. I don't claim to know how we will react to that moment of truth. It may bring us to our senses, or it may drive us in to further madness.

If it's true that we can't reason our way out of this threat at this time, then a single city terrorist type event may be our best hope. At least then we'd have an opportunity to wake up and learn. Without such a limited wake up event then it seems we'll keep playing Russian roulette game until the day the chamber comes up full.

Jake,

a) There are a lot fewer nuclear weapons today than there were during the Cold War.
b) However problematic the Russo-American relations are, the two countries aren't on the brink as they were during the Cold War. And Russia isn't the Soviet Union.
c) The nuclear forces aren't in such imminent stand-by as during the Cold War.
d) Many countries have given up their nuclear weapons projects and even their existing nuclear arsenal. The weapons are not becoming more common even if the technology is now over 70 years old.
e) Even with as hostile relations that Pakistan and India share, never has the conflict between the two escalated to nuclear weapons. Nobody has used them since 1945 and there is an overall consensus (among the nuclear states) that they are intended for deterrence.
f) the testing of nuclear weapons has been dramatically reduced.
g) nobody is saying here that nuclear weapons don't pose a threat. Only that it isn't the most likeliest threat/problem that we have in our hands (like, lets say climate change). The above facts shouldn't be ignored when talking about nuclear weapons and the threat they impose.

Some of you have done your job of challenging my thesis. You've failed, but you have tried, and I thank you for that. — Jake

Your wellcome.

Again, your point is...

Our game of nuclear Russian roulette has worked out so far, so why worry?

- You don't understand that so long as we have nukes it's only a matter of time until the one bad day arrives. There's nothing about human history to suggest a longstanding pattern of all out fight to the death violence that is thousands of years old is now over.

- You don't understand that the very real possibility of unintentional launches renders everything you said above irrelevant. As example, consider nuclear energy reactors. Most of the time nuclear energy reactors work fine, but sometimes they blow up, because human beings are, and always will be, imperfect managers of complex technology, any technology. This matters a LOT when discussing any technology where failure is not an option.

- You don't understand the crucial difference between threats like climate change which are very real, but not imminent direct threats to civilization itself. If you want to make comparisons, you should be talking about civilization crushing threats like incoming giant asteroids which might arrive out of the blue with little warning.

There are a million problems in the world and always have been. We've always overcome these problems because civilization remained in tact. As example, WWII was a massive calamity but we recovered from it because enough of civilization (primarily the Western Hemisphere) remained up and running.

You're confusing this longstanding pattern of mistake and recovery with events which bring the entire system down, thus ending the pattern of mistake and recovery, at least for centuries to come.

If you had a loaded gun in your mouth which could go off at any moment that becomes your immediate number one priority concern. Simple, simple, simple. You'd instantly get it without me having to type 12 billion words.

But to philosophers nuclear weapons are not real life, but instead an entertaining abstraction, just another pile of fuel for the parlor game.

We've always overcome these problems because civilization remained in tact. As example, WWII was a massive calamity but we recovered from it because enough of civilization (primarily the Western Hemisphere) remained up and running. — Jake

Perhaps you live in the Western Hemisphere and hence it's difficult for you to understand, but Europe and even Japan were quite up and running in a short time afterwards and their culture and civilization remained even if WW2 killed 61 million from 2,3 billion people (equivalent to our times would be over 200 million killed).

If we then got over WW2, nuclear weapons would be in your view the equivalent of an incoming asteroid hitting Earth that threats civilization itself. With this I assume you are referring to a similar event that happened with the dinosaurs. As bad as a nuclear war might be, would it really be the end of humanity and civilization?

What you don't understand is that just with US and Russia, the 'all-out' nuclear war looks dramatically different than during the Cold War. And how about the whole Southern Hemisphere, South America, Africa? How would the people there all die and the civilization there would collapse too? Of radiation fallout? Nuclear winter? The Chernobyl accident release radiation the equivalent of 500 nuclear detonations, a similar amount of all atmospheric tests done in the World (and this is an estimate on the higher side). And that radiation cloud after turning in Sweden (that got higher radiation than us) came here too. And what was the result? I remember it: the local radiation authority here said that the radiation levels were up from normal, but not so high that protective measures should be started. I think that they cautioned later of excessive eating of berries and mushroom (or something) and there was debate about the radiation levels in reindeer (who roam around in the wild and eat hundreds of different plants). And what is the result in Ukraine and Belarus? An unintended wildlife sanctuary where we can see what happens when humans are taken out of the equation. It's one thing to say that a nuclear war brings death and destruction, it's another to say that our civilization would collapse.

My understanding is that when it comes to nuclear war, people are happy just assuming the worst and latch onto this hype of utter doom and truly don't think what the actual reality would be. It fits so perfectly to a simple humane view of the World. In fact, many oppose anything else than a catastrophic end to humanity itself as a result of a nuclear war (which btw allways ends up in an all-out exchange) as something else not so dire would just "bring us closer to nuclear war".

What you don't understand is that just with US and Russia, the 'all-out' nuclear war looks dramatically different than during the Cold War. — ssu

There is no meaningful difference between 2,000 nukes landing on a country and 20,000 nukes landing on a country.

Even a handful of nukes on key transportation hubs would disrupt the human food supply chain leading to social and political chaos in short order. How many days of food do you have in your house right now? How many days? Complacency depends entirely on the blind faith that we'll always be able to reliably replenish those supplies. Once that faith is broken, chaos begins to flourish.

A single small nuke in Washington DC would wipe out the heart of the US national government, paving the way for geo-political instability all over the world. The fact that we have most key federal agencies all bunched up together in one place, making a perfect high value target, is yet another example of intellectual elites not being of above average intelligence.

There is no meaningful difference between 2,000 nukes landing on a country and 20,000 nukes landing on a country. — Jake

There definately is a difference. Ten times of a difference.

Even a handful of nukes on key transportation hubs would disrupt the human food supply chain leading to social and political chaos in short order. How many days of food do you have in your house right now? How many days? Complacency depends entirely on the blind faith that we'll always be able to reliably replenish those supplies. Once that faith is broken, chaos begins to flourish. — Jake

Now you are talking about a country that is attacked by nuclear weapons. But how about South America? There's no nukes pointed there. Or other countries that aren't belligerents? A lot of countries are and could be self sufficient in their food supply, rationing works. Globalization surely will take a hit, but just how permanent would the disaster be in the end? You see, if we compare nuclear war to an asteroid hitting the Earth, we truly have to take the scale into consideration: the Chicxulub impactor delivered an estimated energy of 10 billion Hiroshima A-bombs. That is way much more than all the nuclear bombs in the World combined. Comparing our man made nuclear war to an asteroid hitting the Earth isn't simply in the same category.

A single small nuke in Washington DC would wipe out the heart of the US national government, paving the way for geo-political instability all over the world. — Jake

While belonging to "the world" (hence I don't live in the US), I may have to disagree a bit with that. Not everything revolves around you and everything wouldn't collapse without the US. And I do you think you underestimate the capabilities of the US states to organize an emergency transitional government, have elections, have the Capital moved to somewhere else during the time Washington DC is rebuilt.

There definately is a difference. Ten times of a difference. — ssu

Ok, thank you for engaging, but you're clearly not qualified to participate in this conversation, at least not to a level that can hold my interest. See you in some other thread.

If you're run out of things to say on the topic that's because you haven't given the subject very much thought — Jake

I don't think so. It's just that there are a number of existential threats - the most immediate being uranium, plague or nerve gas, in everyday terms - and you wish to concentrate on only one. Environmental collapse, or a global financial crash, are equally serious, and probably more likely. [There are those who would say that environmental collapse is already unavoidable, although it will take a little more time to complete. :fear: ] I see no reason to brush these other threats "under the rug", to concentrate exclusively on nuclear catastrophe.

Ok, thank you for engaging, but you're clearly not qualified to participate in this conversation, at least not to a level that can hold my interest. See you in some other thread. — Jake

So when I counter your argument of "if you want to make comparisons, you should be talking about civilization crushing threats like incoming giant asteroids" by stating how totally different event these are, your answer is to say I'm not clearly qualified in this conversion?

Seems like anything that doesn't support your conclusion aren't in your interest.

Seems like anything that doesn't support your conclusion aren't in your interest. — ssu

You aren't actually interested in the topic you wish to discuss, that's the problem. To disprove this, show us the threads you've started on nuclear weapons, articles you've written etc.

You're interested in debating. Ok, this is a philosophy forum, so go for it, no problem. I'm just not that interested in debating just to be debating, on this particular topic.

You guys are lost in the group consensus complacency delusion. You are in very good company, almost the entire culture including the most prominent intellectual elites. There's nothing I can do about the delusion you are experiencing. We'll just have to wait for the first nuke detonation and see if that helps.

No Jake, it has been a custom in PF that if someone presents a thesis and relies on facts or data, it ought to be corrected if there is something wrong with the statement. It's not about 'failing' or 'winning' a debate at all, that is simply a very naive way to think about discussions in PF. Getting different views and questions just improves your own thinking.

Furthermore, S already answered to you in a very eloquent way, which I can totally agree with:

Defining those who don't see things your way, or who have other priorities, as irrational or literally insane, ironically, does not strike me as motivated by reason, but rather by ideology. — S

(And this was an answer to your opinions in the first page)

To the actual question in the OP of Andrew4Handel about philosophy and intelligence, even this sub-topic represents an answer: one has to be educated about the subject one discusses. Especially one that raises so much fears and where one can easily go with the crowd. (And actually here the crowd goes in your direction, even if you don't think it goes.) As BitterCrank put it, a good education is important and one also needs critical thinking skills. Ignorance of facts leads to personal opinions and feelings taking over. Yet "the love of wisdom" isn't about feelings. Perhaps the answer is that one has to have some intelligence to overall use critical thinking skills a get to educated.

Is there a way we can make philosophy into a friendlier endeavour for the average guy?



Philosophy and critical thinking shouldn't be things someone either "has or doesn't have." We should all be equipped to learning and studying, and if it were more enjoyable for the lot of humanity, perhaps we would reach conclusions more quickly and thoroughly.

I am going to go from personal experience and say that I for one am somewhat intimidated by some philosophers and deep thinkers because I know that they have more knowledge on many subjects than I do. Perhaps this is silly, but alas let us not forget that the limbic system is in high demand. For someone who does not engage in deep or critical thinking on a regular basis, I can only imagine that they would be even more intimidated than I am considering their limited association with the process, and so my suggestion to limit this particular issue is simple... When you can... Dumb it down.
I know, I know, we have spent gobs of money buying the ability to create million dollar sentences, and while they are necessary in times in order to maintain specific clarity, they don't captivate society in a broad sense. If you can explain something in vast and great detail, so too should you have the ambition to reduce it to it's utmost simplicity. Of course this is not always easy.

I'm sure there are more ways to consider this question as well.

When you can... Dumb it down. — Lif3r

After studying a masters degree in the university, have to confess that many academic people won't do this.

They limit or accept the 'dumbing down' principle only for the popularization of science or philosophy, which they see as important method to communicate to the masses... but nothing else. Using difficult terms that open only to people educated in the field is actually a social way to create your own academic niche and promote yourself (and your peers that use the jargon) to be 'experts' on the field. So if you don't understand the term da sein, tough luck! Few philosophers will dare try to describe Heidegger's term in their words (and we assume that is his term, not just the ordinary word in German). Perhaps they'll refer to a book by Heidegger to you. After all, any serious philosophy student understands the fundamental concept of Heidegger's existentialist thinking.

This doesn't only concern philosophy and philosophers. Economists, sociologists and even historians fall to this vice. I'll give an example. When working in the Academy of Finland as a junior researcher, I remember one historian in the project who had wanted to make one of her books as accessible to the general public and wrote her book in the most readable way as she could make it. She explained all the difficult historical jargon and the historical terms used in the book (as old terms from agriculture are usually totally unknown to people nowdays). What was the result? She was viciously attacked by her peers of writing a book that was totally unacademic nonsense. It nearly went to ad hominem attacks.

So, really, to be clear, what I'm really talking about is that we philosophers are morons with a rich fantasy life. As example, my fantasy is that typing all this over and over again is going to ever accomplish anything. — Jake

Well, yes, I agree with you to some extent. There's certainly no shortage of people with a rich fantasy life within philosophy, and yes, there are morons too, as you'll occasionally encounter in most places. Everything's an idea! What if I'm a butterfly dreaming of being a man? Are we brains in vats? How can I know that I have a body? Why do you think I kept trying to get through to you that philosophy, in and of itself, is not the bastion of reason you're looking for to get humanity seeing things your way? People will do their own thing, as they always do. You can only get out of philosophy what you put in. Philosophy is not going to be the answer you're looking for to accomplish your goal, it's just a tool, and the job at hand is going to require way more than that. Hence to blame philosophy for this is, as I've repeatedly said, to scapegoat it. You'll only set yourself up for disappointment with those kind of naive expectations. Unless you happen to be the next Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr., you probably won't get very far. Deal with it.

No, it isn't, but one might argue that the threat is. — Pattern-chaser

The threat is about to happen? What does that even mean? Trump's about to do the modern equivalent of beating his chest? Yes, that's somewhat concerning for a number of reasons, but hardly as though there's a gun pointed to my head.

Either way, there are a number of serious - species-threatening or world-threatening - things that we might chose to be concerned about. Nuclear war is one of them. Is it really worth arguing any more about this? I think not, and I will add no further comments on this sub-sub-topic. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, there are, and some of them I am concerned about, to some extent, some of the time. But that's not what the dispute is over. The dispute, as I see it, is over the misleading rhetoric.

one has to be educated about the subject one discusses — ssu

That seems good advice for you to follow.

No Jake, it has been a custom in PF that if someone presents a thesis and relies on facts or data, it ought to be corrected if there is something wrong with the statement. It's not about 'failing' or 'winning' a debate at all, — ssu

Ok, now you're getting deep in to dishing out the BS.

I am going to go from personal experience and say that I for one am somewhat intimidated by some philosophers and deep thinkers because I know that they have more knowledge on many subjects than I do. — Lif3r

This is much of what I'm attempting to address in this thread. There is no reason for you to be intimidated. Well, ok, so it depends...

HISTORY: If you define philosophy as the accumulation of historical information regarding which famous philosopher said what and when etc, then professional academic philosophers are quite likely to know more about that than the rest of us, given that they've spent some number of years studying these subjects all day long everyday. If that is your vision of what philosophy is, and if you don't have that training, then some humility is in order, agreed.

REASON: If on the other hand you define philosophy as the application of reason to human situations (as I do) then there is really little reason to be in awe of the professionals. We in the public are largely ignoring the nuclear gun in our mouth, as are the intellectual elites. There's no meaningful difference between the public and the professionals.

BUSINESS: If on yet the other hand, if you define philosophy as the ability to accumulate cultural authority, position and status within academia, and to receive payment for one's philosophy, then in that case the professionals are clearly leading the field.

If your quoted words above you reference both "deep thinking" and "knowledge". In the spirit of philosophy, you might wish to question the degree to which deep thinking and knowledge are really what philosophy (defined as reason) is about.

As example, there's little deep thinking in my posts above. All I've done in my comments above is apply simple, straightforward, common sense to the reality that our culture has a gun in it's mouth, and we are largely ignoring this remarkably huge fact. That doesn't require deep thinking, or specialized knowledge, or a PhD. It requires only an interest in applying reason to human situations, and in following the path of reason where ever it might lead.

The dispute, as I see it, is over the misleading rhetoric. — S

Dear Professor Dimwit,

Are there thousands of hydrogen bombs on hair trigger alert poised to erase at least Western civilization at the push of a button, or not?

Yes? Or no?

Please observe how you will now display an inability to answer a simple yes or no question based on widely agreed upon facts in a straightforward direct manner.

That's because you're not actually interested in the topic being discussed, but in the experience of debate. That's not wrong, but neither is it interesting.

"Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

― Albert Einstein.

These two quotes often attributed to Einstein make me believe that most philosophers tend to miss a big chunk of philosophy by not considering the intelligence and impulse behind the actions and experiences of the 'average guy'. He (average guy) may not be able to express himself with the same dexterity as a highly educated person but he still has the capacity to direct his life to as great a utility as most highly educated people. This, to me, reveals that philosophy goes beyond mental exercises and is best expressed through actions than statements.

"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school."

― Albert Einstein.

As example, there's little deep thinking in my posts above. — Jake

I think that many have noticed that.

All I've done in my comments above is apply simple, straightforward, common sense to the reality that our culture has a gun in it's mouth, and we are largely ignoring this remarkably huge fact. That doesn't require deep thinking, or specialized knowledge, or a PhD. — Jake

Or actual knowledge about nuclear war either. What you've just done is to get fixated with the nuclear war scare and with the exaggerations of the imminent doom of civilization so typical 30 years ago. And we know why the discourse was and is still so apocalyptic. If the effects of nuclear weapons have been greatly exaggerated, there is a very good reason: since these weapons are indeed extremely dangerous, any posturing and exaggeration which intensifies our fear of them makes us less likely to use them. From this logic also follows then that any discussion where nuclear weapons and war wouldn't be described as being so catastrophic to humanity would (somehow) get us closer to using them. This was very typical during the Cold War.

Yet then you make then the quite odd conclusion that if philosophers haven't constantly written about this, they are not rational, they have to be morons, basically insane, because of the imminent threat to humanity. This shows your ideological zeal about the issue, which can be seen also in that you simply don't take into account any other views on the subject.

Dear Professor Dimwit, — Jake

It's alright. I understand why you're lashing out at me. Go ahead and call me names if it makes you feel better, but that won't improve your weak arguments.

Are there thousands of hydrogen bombs on hair trigger alert poised to erase at least Western civilization at the push of a button, or not?

Yes? Or no? — Jake

Yes. (But that's beside the point, which is about your misleading rhetoric, including your talk of guns being pointed at heads, a driverless bus, and your use of the term "imminent").

Please observe how you will now display an inability to answer a simple yes or no question based on widely agreed upon facts in a straightforward direct manner.

That's because you're not actually interested in the topic being discussed, but in the experience of debate. That's not wrong, but neither is it interesting. — Jake

Good job at making a fool of yourself. :up:

And your comment about Nazism in the other discussion either says nothing at all remarkable or something profoundly wrong. A case that is in some sense logical can be made for virtually anything.

Encouraging the masses is the topic at hand. Personally I don't care how I appeal to academics. They aren't the majority. I don't have to prove anything to anyone. I am merely a conduit for my perceptions. If the words aren't impressive to academics, then so be it.