> it seems like there's always a hint of paranoia to those things.
If you mean the reading list the parent post mentioned, I must disagree. Carl Sagan's books are about scientific divulgation. In fact, "The Demon Haunted World" isn't about conspiracy theories but about the scientific method and how it differs from pseudoscience, and how to avoid falling prey to tempting but irrational ideas (what he calls "The baloney detection kit"). The other book by Sagan is likewise about science, not about persecution or being "an outlier".
Noam Chomsky's book is different. Of course, writings about the control of the media by the few and the manipulation of public opinion can, when looked through the warped lens of someone with a persecution complex, look like confirmation that "they" are after you. But Chomsky isn't paranoid, he is political.
I'm less familiar with the rest of the books, but at a quick glance they don't seem to have a hint of paranoia to me.
I've not read that Sagan book ( nor Dragons of Eden ) , but in general, you're absolutely correct - his are pure scientific storytelling.
I maintain that Adam Curtis, Nassem Taleb and Manufacturing Consent are on a subject in which it's impossible to not be a teeny bit paranoid ( Bernays and propaganda/advertising ) but yes, Chomsky is in general just scholarly. This being said, his work does involve descriptions of systems in which he believes people abuse power.
> I maintain that Adam Curtis, Nassem Taleb and Manufacturing Consent are on a subject in which it's impossible to not be a teeny bit paranoid
I see what you mean, and I find 'teeny bit paranoid' as a concept so intensely frustrating! We're using a word that by definition is extreme, and then use it in a situation where it doesn't really apply (on account of it being a 'teeny bit so'). It's basically 'guilt by association'.
It's akin to calling someone's views a 'teeny bit mysogynic', or 'a teeny bit racist', makes as much sense as 'somewhat unique', but it basically removes any gray area from the discussion.
I understand why and how this happens, but it's so frustratingly effective to shut down any kind of interesting avenue of discussion.
(Edit: it gets worse when, in a conversation, an actual full-blown mysogynist or racist decides to come to your aid, although sometimes the resulting conversation is so farcical to be funny again)
(Edit 2: that one guy with that blog with codex in it that is often posted to HN wrote about this quite eloquently, if I remember correctly)
If you mean the reading list the parent post mentioned, I must disagree. Carl Sagan's books are about scientific divulgation. In fact, "The Demon Haunted World" isn't about conspiracy theories but about the scientific method and how it differs from pseudoscience, and how to avoid falling prey to tempting but irrational ideas (what he calls "The baloney detection kit"). The other book by Sagan is likewise about science, not about persecution or being "an outlier".
Noam Chomsky's book is different. Of course, writings about the control of the media by the few and the manipulation of public opinion can, when looked through the warped lens of someone with a persecution complex, look like confirmation that "they" are after you. But Chomsky isn't paranoid, he is political.
I'm less familiar with the rest of the books, but at a quick glance they don't seem to have a hint of paranoia to me.