On Mr. Ripley
Just over two years ago on 1 Jul, 2006, on the last day of our honeymoon, sadeyedartist and I visited the original Ripley's Believe It or Not Museum. In my "Happenings" report following, I indicated how visiting there changed my opinion of the man.
I had always thought that Ripley exploited weird things about people or that most of his odd things to believe were just stupid people doing gross things. Perhaps that is due to my only real exposure to him was via the TV show that I saw advertised while in high school.
But the actual Ripley himself was more interested in showing that truth is very often stranger than fiction.
You all know how I feel about urban legends.[1] I find it fascinating that people seem so readily to believe urban legends and yet aren't willing to believe that some human beings have grown horns or had four working ears.
How can one tell the difference between urban legend and strange fact?
I would answer that he or she has to rely on trustworthy witnesses.
Throughout his life, Ripley was never proven wrong. He had a particular man working for him whose job it was to verify every account sent in to the company. Ripley did not just blindly believe everything he heard; he tried to verify it. Nor did he not believe the things that seemed too hard to believe if enough witnesses provided evidence.
People today seem to not put enough stock in this method of epistemology, in my opinion. They will accept a rumor without reliable witnesses to back it up and yet will deny events even when many come forward with reliable accounts.
I'm not sure exactly where I am going with all this; it just seems to be an area of epistemology that has come up in discussion a lot recently....
I had always thought that Ripley exploited weird things about people or that most of his odd things to believe were just stupid people doing gross things. Perhaps that is due to my only real exposure to him was via the TV show that I saw advertised while in high school.
But the actual Ripley himself was more interested in showing that truth is very often stranger than fiction.
You all know how I feel about urban legends.[1] I find it fascinating that people seem so readily to believe urban legends and yet aren't willing to believe that some human beings have grown horns or had four working ears.
How can one tell the difference between urban legend and strange fact?
I would answer that he or she has to rely on trustworthy witnesses.
Throughout his life, Ripley was never proven wrong. He had a particular man working for him whose job it was to verify every account sent in to the company. Ripley did not just blindly believe everything he heard; he tried to verify it. Nor did he not believe the things that seemed too hard to believe if enough witnesses provided evidence.
People today seem to not put enough stock in this method of epistemology, in my opinion. They will accept a rumor without reliable witnesses to back it up and yet will deny events even when many come forward with reliable accounts.
I'm not sure exactly where I am going with all this; it just seems to be an area of epistemology that has come up in discussion a lot recently....