Too Democratic

For reasons I shan't go into, I had a sudden desire to do a bit of research into ye ole King Arthur and his cronies from the Round Table and this is an excerpt from the first website I happened to come across:

“Was Arthur a true, historical figure or only a hero of legend? This is truly up to each and every one of us to decide for ourselves.”

Needless to say, this killed dead in its tracks any curiosity I may have still had in the topic. No. It is not for 'us to decide for ourselves'; it is up to the facts to tell us what happened. That's how human knowledge progresses.
Yes, fine, there may not be enough information to tell us exactly what happened and in this instance that seems to be the case, but that certainly doesn't mean that people can go right ahead and chose from the two options pretending that they're both as good and equally a valid solution to the problem. If there is not enough evidence to support either of the theories it means that we have to accept suspending our judgment of the question and wait for further evidence, and subsequently skeptically scrutinise the new evidence of course.
This particular case is even more pertinent to my main point in that there isn't actually an equal dividing line between the two theories requiring equal doubt of both unless supported. In this case if there is not sufficient evidence then it actually, by default, leans towards the side of the negative: that the story of Arthur is a myth. This is because of the inherent nature of what is being proposed by each of the theories. Our natural state should be to assume that it was a myth, because there's not much to support the contrary, and then place the burden of proof on the side of the persons trying to argue the alternative. If they provide a good case, then, by all means, we should change our minds.

It seems that in today's society (possibly older times as well, i'm not sure, i wasn't there) it has become somewhat of a faux pas to merely point out that a currently held belief is, well, wrong. Leaving the only ground left to present the happy land of compromise. Through my, admittedly and regrettably, limited readings I have come across many such instances in which even the most usually outspoken, skeptically rational, scientifically literate (yes, that is a vital characteristic) person has found themselves compelled to resort to this ultra-democratic, non-contentious position of compromising between two positions. I don't blame them either, because proposing anything else leaves them open to automatic accusations of arrogance or bigotry.

This is what happens when the general public (italics important) becomes too democratic or too generous with their criticism, extolling that both sides of the argument have merit. Sometimes people are just wrong and their beliefs, crazy. But, as i said above, it often reflects badly on the person suggesting this and makes them look arrogant for not 'allowing' other peoples opinions.

Today with all our current scientific, technological, moral, philosophical and social progress it seems to be popular to skirt around the issue of critically assessing peoples beliefs to avoid hurting their feelings or whatever. I just want to raise this idea into peoples minds when they read someone's criticism of another's ideas. Don't just dismiss it on the grounds that you think they're arrogant (even though they may be) but look at what they have to say, and look at what sort of credentials they have and why they're defending what they're defending or criticising and so on. This is important because it has been and is in international news quite recently and it seems that a huge proportion of people, understandably, can't get a handle of this.

God forbid that people tell the truth...