>Here's a commonplace example that I would bet most of us on this list have
>experienced:
>You're at a party and a group of new acquaintances are sitting around
>having some beers or whatever and someone brings up the Poltergeist that is
>haunting their friend's house (or crop circles, or the uncanny horoscope
>reading they just got, or whatever).
>What ensues is usually a lively conversation full of laughs and anecdotes
>as everyone shares their similar story. Everyone that is except The
>Skeptic, who sits stony faced and attempts to explain that it is all bunk
>and/or has a rational explanation. This appears to have little effect on
>the group other than confirm their conviction that The Skeptic is a bore.
>So, in this small example...here's my question...what obligation do you
>have toward the "truth" in this situation? There would appear to be a stiff
>cost associated with the "truth" in this situation, assuming that there is
>a social benefit to be had...
>Deron
I think that in that situation, you should consider the possible outcomes of shedding light to these subjects and measure those potential outcomes against what your social goals are for the evening. It doesn't necessarily always pay to be right. Perhaps you'd have a better time that evening by just going along with the conversation and seeing it for what it is...social entertainment. It's kinda like pro-wrestling, we know that it's fake, but why bitch and complain about it? We can just enjoy it for what it is. Maybe the skeptic, in your example, could just do the same.
I don't think that we always have an obligation to the truth. We can just use "truth" at our discretion--depending on our goals.
Michael Fulford
"Guns don't kill people. Ideologies kill people."