And I argue that they are evidence of mental illness,
I would say there are four possible categories for denial of evidence - borrowed heavily from Dawkin's comment on evolution:
(1) lack of ability to understand the evidence (stupid), (2) lack of {background\education\knowledge\etc} to understand the evidence (ignorant), (3) malignant intentional deception (lying) - the creatortionista types on so many websites, and (4) belief that the evidence is wrong (delusion).
Often there are mixes between these categories.
In this last category are those that range from (a) being told a string of {lies\misrepresentations\etc} by people they trust (and thus also crosses into ignorant), to those (b) who are absolutely convinced of their belief no matter what evidence contradicts it - the psychotically deluded, whether they believe they are Napoleon, that Pompeii was destroyed in 1631 (not 79ad), or that the earth is flat doesn't matter, it is the conviction that defines this level.
The difference between (a) and (b) is the ability to admit being wrong when the evidence is presented.
I also remember an old "definition" of fanatic: someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject. People like this can become "new" members under a different user name and they are quickly identified by their fanaticism on their pet subjects. "John Jaeger" (aka spiderMBA aka mirabel auditu aka etc) is one I have run across on a number of websites that fits this description.
There is no real debate with a fanatic, you just beat your head against the wall(s) they have erected. All you can do is expose their logical fallacies and false information and show the evidence that contradicts their belief -- for others to see.
Evidence of mental illness is just one possibility. Some possibilities are curable and some aren't. What I see "showcase" doing is restricting those that show a tendency to being incurable ... unless and until they show otherwise.
so in the original instance I think that randman didn't do more than skim the essay (NJ clearly did this with the NYT article he wrongly attacked in the OP of "The Future of Marriage" thread).
So it is partly ignorance, whether intentional or not.
It might be lying It's not really covered by a belief that they evidence is wrong.
When it gets to the level that the evidence MUST be wrong then any evidence otherwise is ignored -- see above re skimming: another possibility is that they read it but it didn't register because it conflicted with their predisposed view of what it SHOULD say.
I consider this a form of delusion but it's not really a belief that the evidence is wrong - it's a refusal to admit that the evidence even exists.
And I agree that this behavior is not rational. This is part of why I brought up fanatical, because of the "broken record" behavior.
But the question is also where this behavior comes from, and it starts with being deluded by the falsehoods of others, whether family or "trusted preachers and teachers". It starts with misunderstanding & misrepresentations.
It's not stupidity. He can read. It's not lack of education
I can read too, and I have several degrees, but I'm not sure I can fully understand quantum mechanics because of that. What you have learned flavors what you can understand.
Personally I think it is the fanaticism that is the cause for being "showcased" not the beliefs per se, or else all fundamentalists would be showcased: if Fred Phelps posted here he would be showcased.
™ Version 4.2
