It's an entropic argument. Mainstream views are the result of many loose assumptions and lots of loose reasoning. Differences compound exponentially, so if you agree with mainstream thinking almost everywhere then either your inputs and thinking must extraordinarily well-defined in precise agreement with everyone else or, more likely, you are human and therefore susceptible to the same groupthink mechanisms as the rest of us.
I'm not fond of this argument because it's easy to formulate poorly and difficult to formulate well.
Instead, I favor a simpler appeal to history: from our point of view, any random person picked from history would be likely to have at at least one closely held belief that would be considered highly problematic by modern standards. What reason do we have to believe that we are somehow above this trend?
I'm not fond of this argument because it's easy to formulate poorly and difficult to formulate well.
Instead, I favor a simpler appeal to history: from our point of view, any random person picked from history would be likely to have at at least one closely held belief that would be considered highly problematic by modern standards. What reason do we have to believe that we are somehow above this trend?