David,

I stand corrected, and with the knowledge that criticism is "the pabulum of
mediocrity," I know exactly how to assess your position.

But I keep hearing the still small voice of John Stuart Mill, whose "On
Freedom of Expression," in _On Liberty_, admonishes us that unchallenged
belief is merely superstition, and that human progress depends on
correcting, through conversation, the errors individuals naturally make, no
matter how great great such individuals might be.  (Would that Einstein had
considered his human tendency toward error when he dismissed quantum theory
out of hand.)  I seem to remember Mill saying that conversation in this vein
is not "everybody's-opinion-is-equally-true," but that reasoned discourse
clarifies truth.  (Mind you, unsupported judgment uttered with Olympian
certitute is not what Mill meant by discussion.  He felt that such facile
self-justification was really a sign of a closed mind that doesn't even know
know that it's closed.)  Entertaining counter-arguments is a necessary
component of really knowing, even if one finds one's original position
confirmed in the exercise.  Such o!
 penness requires humility, something that even the stiff-necked Puritan
Cromwell understood.  When pushed to an extreme extreme by one of his
colleagues, he said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it
possible you may be mistaken."

Until now, I didn't know that Mill and Cromwell were such touchy-feely
lefties, so willing to follow the crowd's mediocrity, but, again, I seem to
need to be corrected by a greater individual.

Yours in kumbaya blather,

Gregg