One question the ‘debate club’ rarely addresses is what to do when everyone sees both sides of a given topic.
The Earth is surely round but everywhere I look it’s as flat as can be, you know? It's a hard point to refute, really, since the science doesn't hand me a simple explanation to share with the stranger who is now casually chit-chatting with me while we both watch the sun go down.
Sure, I could say the sun goes out of sight because, I mean, you wouldn't see the ground beneath your feet if you stood on a huge basketball, right? But then my new (and annoying) friend could say, sure, but you wouldn't see a basketball if it was under the table you were standing on, either...
I understand why some respond when the question is raised regarding the optimal level of hand washing. I’m at least willing to listen. It’s a lot like going to a new city. As a tourist, I might be more interested in exploring than the locals. But being a little too open makes me susceptible to wandering down a cul-de-sac everyone in town knows to avoid. I think being a critical thinker must work the same way. It is hard to tell if I’m just starting my journey down an exciting new avenue, or…
I have no idea where the balance is between the benefits of being an outsider who learns for himself and the potential to waste my own time repeating mistakes the insiders know all about.
