Recently there was an article that appeared dealing with the problem of duty and skepticism. One commenter stated:
Duty
and skepticism are contrary constructs. Duty eschews choice in favor of
obedience. Skepticism may be present, but questioning is not allowed in
spite of misgivings. Skepticism without questioning and the freedom to
follow logic is of no value. Duty is a commandment; skepticism is a
suggestion. A free people embraces skepticism and eschews duty. A free
people chooses, a duty-bound people obeys.
I thought that was a truly interesting statement, because both duty and skepticism are admirable qualities, yet presented as being in opposition to each other, and to a large extent that's true, on the surface. I saw this as a issue of oversimplification, and of definition! My view was, in spite of the seemingly contradictory juxtaposition they represent, they can harmonize.
One of my personal heroes was Col. John Boyd, and he once said (and there have been variations of this) "Ask for my loyalty, I’ll give you my honesty. Ask for my honesty, you’ll have my loyalty."
He
believed in duty so strongly he challenged the generals unendingly.
His duty wasn't to chair bound self serving generals, it was to the nation.
So, let me tell you about Col. John Boyd! He believed it was his duty to be skeptical as being true to the oath he took, but it was based on a foundation of facts. Facts the generals attempted to thwart with court martials. They failed, but he never wore stars on his shoulders.
The stars fell on those who where part of what was called Boyd's Acolytes. Those officers who were part of his circle, and believed in his views, only I must believe they were more political in expressing them. But it always takes one person who's willing to be the rock in the current, to stand and say, "you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why", and then willingly suffer the slings and arrows of adversity, and ultimately be the one sacrificed in order for others to carry the torch.
The
motto of science is supposedly "de omnibus dubitandum" (everything is
to be questioned), but since they've abandoned it in favor of "grant
money is my holy grail!" I've claimed it as my own personal motto. A philosophy of skepticism, and duty, which in combination is at the heart of truth and justice.
Recently there was an article that appeared dealing with the problem of duty and skepticism. One commenter stated:
Duty and skepticism are contrary constructs. Duty eschews choice in favor of obedience. Skepticism may be present, but questioning is not allowed in spite of misgivings. Skepticism without questioning and the freedom to follow logic is of no value. Duty is a commandment; skepticism is a suggestion. A free people embraces skepticism and eschews duty. A free people chooses, a duty-bound people obeys.
He believed in duty so strongly he challenged the generals unendingly. His duty wasn't to chair bound self serving generals, it was to the nation. So, let me tell you about Col. John Boyd! He believed it was his duty to be skeptical as being true to the oath he took, but it was based on a foundation of facts. Facts the generals attempted to thwart with court martials. They failed, but he never wore stars on his shoulders.
The stars fell on those who where part of what was called Boyd's Acolytes. Those officers who were part of his circle, and believed in his views, only I must believe they were more political in expressing them. But it always takes one person who's willing to be the rock in the current, to stand and say, "you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why", and then willingly suffer the slings and arrows of adversity, and ultimately be the one sacrificed in order for others to carry the torch.
The motto of science is supposedly "de omnibus dubitandum" (everything is to be questioned), but since they've abandoned it in favor of "grant money is my holy grail!" I've claimed it as my own personal motto. A philosophy of skepticism, and duty, which in combination is at the heart of truth and justice.