It’s probably the people I hang around online as I see far more scientism or leaning towards that side of the spectrum than I do post modernism, which I hear lots of people complain about but very few people actually doing it.
I focus on a narrow set of people: people who are highly intelligent but leaning towards extremes of hyper-correctness. [rigid].
Here’s why: There are many many people who complain about post-modernism. Many people who complain about religion. Many people who complain about sloppy thinking, New Age gurus and such. Many people performing this role.
So, I don’t have to do it too.
So, I ask myself, What can I offer that’s different?
I can focus instead on the other end of the spectrum: People who are more than intelligent enough to notice where they’ve gone to extremes in their thinking to the point of turning their intellectual ideology into a religion of sorts. Nothing supernatural seems to be there until you notice what they use as the basis of the Universe. For one, it may be mathematics. For another, logic, for another, statistical probabilities. For another, the scientific method. For another, randomness. All of these and other strong origins can be dangerous because they can lead intelligent people into a different kind of “woo” and they begin to lose sense.
Being intelligent, they *should* be easier to convince than somebody who is a sloppy thinker. But it’s opposite of that: sloppy thinkers are usually easier to convince of their errors but people who are intelligent are very difficult to convince to look at their certainties and challenge them.
Why do I think it’s important? Because it is the intelligent people who help guide the less intelligent and if the more intelligent are misleading themselves unknowingly, they will also mislead the less intelligent. Hence, I focus on them.