Dear Editor:
RE: Critical thinking, Aug. 25.
According to John Burger’s reply to my letter, I guess those “without their critical thinking caps on” might get confused so would prefer someone else do their thinking for them.
Democracy is not akin to spectator sports; in order for it to thrive and survive it requires active participation. We need both sides of any issue out in the public eye in order for us to weigh them with any semblance of discernment. To do otherwise is a prime example of the abhorrent censorship alive and well today.
My letter was not actually about the subject matter in the initial letter, but was directed to the editor’s penchant to only make comments on COVID-19 and climate change letters that don’t match the current narrative. I see this as a form of censorship which has the goal of redirecting a reader’s thoughts away from one pathway, and down another, and apparently – according to letters like John Burger’s, it’s working.
Unfortunately, there was no backup on the 90% of complying scientists that one might investigate. That was my point. But because it’s suggested by the editor, it’s taken as the authoritative word on the matter.
I’m not a scientist nor do I purport to be one. But changes the governments have planned seriously affect us all, and it behooves us as citizens – on behalf of ourselves, our children and theirs – to ensure we are well informed and educated, instead of going along to get along. Because that is exactly how democracy falls.
Barbara Bowie,
Fergus