"A pretty tiny fraction of them are any good"? I really don't agree. Most every idea is pretty good, at least in a couple of circumstances. Most every idea also has very serious flaws. But that does not mean the idea is worthless. I guess the most obvious example is democracy; it has some very serious flaws, but it's the best we've got. Usually, the same can be said for any popular political philosophy; good, but with some serious flaws.
Also, in the vast majority of cases, both sides of the argument should be concidered. Sure ID should be dead by now, but the first time it was proposed it very definatly should have had both sides heard. Look at when evolution was first proposed as an idea. Had both sides not been heard on that idea, had it not been given it's 5 minutes, we would live in a very different world. Of course this is an example that will make many people wince, as I am comparing an evidence backed theory with pure religious dogma, but I fail to see the difference. If religious based dogma cannot be successfully argued against, then maybe some more research should be done to counter it. But until a rational/scientific argument can be formed against it, I see no reason why it should not receive its 5 minutes.
I disagree with you. Every time you deny an idea 5 minutes, or the time it takes to form a convincing argument against it, you are presuming guilt. It's standard that we put the burden of proof on the person proposing the idea, but just recently I've been trying to put the burden of proof on myself. If I cannot form or find a convincing argument to counter the idea, then what reason do I have not to accept it? Or if not accept it, at least give it a space in the great library of valid ideas. Maybe "giving the idea 5 minutes" is a bad way to look at it, but coming up with a purely rational/scientific basis for the dismissal or acceptance of any idea is a very good exercise.
Also, in the vast majority of cases, both sides of the argument should be concidered. Sure ID should be dead by now, but the first time it was proposed it very definatly should have had both sides heard. Look at when evolution was first proposed as an idea. Had both sides not been heard on that idea, had it not been given it's 5 minutes, we would live in a very different world. Of course this is an example that will make many people wince, as I am comparing an evidence backed theory with pure religious dogma, but I fail to see the difference. If religious based dogma cannot be successfully argued against, then maybe some more research should be done to counter it. But until a rational/scientific argument can be formed against it, I see no reason why it should not receive its 5 minutes.
I disagree with you. Every time you deny an idea 5 minutes, or the time it takes to form a convincing argument against it, you are presuming guilt. It's standard that we put the burden of proof on the person proposing the idea, but just recently I've been trying to put the burden of proof on myself. If I cannot form or find a convincing argument to counter the idea, then what reason do I have not to accept it? Or if not accept it, at least give it a space in the great library of valid ideas. Maybe "giving the idea 5 minutes" is a bad way to look at it, but coming up with a purely rational/scientific basis for the dismissal or acceptance of any idea is a very good exercise.