One of the weaknesses or perceived weaknesses of the philosophical view defined as "liberal" is that you always admit that you may be wrong. Arguments appear soft to some because credit is usually ascribed to the parts of the opposing doctrine that have merit. To those who never had the opportunity for collegiate study where one had to support not just two opposing arguments, but recognize the many possibilities that could be argued these people, who they condescendingly call "pseudo intellectuals" or a "intellectuals" with a pejorative tone appear unsure. Generally, the more education a person has, the more liberal their philosophy as they understand that a dichotomy is usually a losing proposition because it excludes all ideas not part of the reactionary argument.
A great example of this blind zealotry (I was going to use "enthusiasm", but the etymology of that word contradicts its inclusion) was apparent during the McCarthy hearings. I just learned today that they dragged the composer and musician Aaron Copland in front of them for "un-American activities". To get a feel for the intellectual level of committee members, many didn't know who he was. Even at that time he had been acknowledged as the composer who created American classical music. Most of us recognize "Fanfare for the Common Man" and parts of "Appalachian Spring" or the "Billy the Kid Ballet". To be considered culturally literate one would have to be familiar with him.
Nothing he had done, written or played irked the panel. All of his work celebrated a great nation and preached American ideals. The problem was that he was gay and Jewish. Because of what he was, who he was and what he did was insignificant to the panel.
So pay attention Tea Party: Never endorse or reject something that is said or done because of who said it. The veracity of something is not diminished because it is quoted by a disciple instead of the master. And sometimes the prophet may be simply sharing his opinion as a man, not serving as the oracle of God.
You can't prove that anything is absolutely true. All you can do is have faith that it is true until something comes along that explains it better or demonstrates its fallibility. Newtonian physics, for example, were never true even though they work quite well for the world we observe with our senses. Even though we continue to use Newton's calculus it is not absolutely accurate. Einstein (and many others) proved that it was incorrect, but it still works for much of what we do.
The one thing I rely on is that whenever I find someone who feels they are absolutely right, that they are positive and that what they are preaching has been endorsed by the gods of this and other worlds, the more likely that person hasn't investigated enough alternatives.
