YOUR SAY: Critical analysis needs open-minded skepticism

Kathy Solomon's response to my recent letter to the editor dealing with the issue of Technocracy deserves a reply. She suggested that I did not provide a single example of how the conspiracy theory of Technocracy can be debunked. In case that the main point of my response was missed, my purpose in writing a challenge to Solomon's views was not to provide evidence to support my own conclusions. Rather, my intention was to challenge the reader to be skeptical of any theory or book that agrees with a preconceived notion of "truth" existing in the eye of the beholder.

In my 41 years of college and university teaching, my challenge to students was always best summed up in this very basic question — "How do you know what you know?" Who are your authorities and what are your sources of information and evidence? I further challenged students to remain as "open-minded" skeptics in evaluating any new ideas and/or information. Be acutely aware of what and who "informs" your own decision-making and conclusions.

Clearly I am not nor do I claim to be an expert in the area of technocracy theory, so Solomon should not "await my book" on that subject. However, Solomon, as a "true believer" in technocracy conspiracy, can team up with her hero, Patrick Wood, to write some of his future works in the field.

Solomon further suggested that I "invest a couple of bucks" to purchase Wood's book, "Technocracy Rising." Actually the book is for sale on Amazon for $21.99 plus shipping, so the investment is more than "a couple of bucks." But, I would never invest in this publication or any other before researching reviews and summaries of the publication from respected divergent scholars. When I read several such reviews, such as one by Mark Sussman (MIT professor), I concluded the book was not for me. Sussman concluded that most of the book's conclusions are "more like fear-mongering than analysis."

In conclusion, the Technocracy Conspiracy Theory is founded on the premise that there is a worldwide attempt to impose a scientific dictatorship. The theory is also wedded to the myth that climate change is a United Nations-led hoax to create a new world order under the control of the UN. Interestingly, Pope Francis is often identified as part of the conspiracy and an advocate of this New World Order as he seeks to combat climate change and eliminate world hunger.

I would challenge the serious reader interested in this topic to read a wide selection of views before leaping on that particular conspiracy theory. Would anyone seriously suggest that all the divergent world leaders from such contradictory governments as the U.S., Communist China, Russia, countries from the Middle East and Far East, South America, Africa, etc., would be able to sit together and agree with each other to form a one world government? Really?

My own personal viewpoint, which I would never attempt to impose on another person, is that the only environmental conspiracy theory that is real is one that seeks to deny the truth that human activity is altering the climate of the Earth on which we live. I am both religious and scientific in my personal view that as a strong believer in God, I view God as, among other descriptors, the first and greatest scientist of all.

Bill Curry is a professor emeritus at Wesleyan College.

This story was originally published January 13, 2016 at 9:34 PM.