So I'm watching, reading, and listening to too much news, so the first example that comes to my mind, unfortunately, is political. I've noticed that a number of opinions are held in large blocks. For instance, if someone says that President Bush declared the end of war in Iraq, you can almost stop listening because you know where it's going, you know what political parties they have sympathies to and so on. You might be able to guess what they're reading, too.
But toksik said more or less what I was thinking---anti-viral software. In casual philosophy, an empiricist might be more likely to read more empiricists than rationalists, because it seems to make more sense. As a result, he develops more arguments against rationalism, and finds them more and more nonsensical and therefore less worthwhile reading. When he does read the rationalist, he would then regard her with less authority (This woman's a real nut-job). I'm not claiming that philosophers actually do this kind of thing, but I have a tendency to do it and I think I'm not unique for it.
Um... So I'm looking for where magic falls into all of this, because I'm sure it does. |
