Tuesday, December 31, 2013

My New Year's Wish For 2014 (and on into 2017)

2013 seems to be a year I shouldn't miss.  Though life's experience thus far has taught me there always seems to be some memories to cherish even in hard times.

I met a 1st cousin of my mother's who has an amazingly sharp mind in spite of frequently forgetting what was said just a minute or two ago.  The contrast between her short term and long term memories was amazing and I felt just as amazingly fortunate to have met her.  I know, how many times could I use the word 'amazing' there, but it seems quite fitting in spite of whatever literary critique it may attract.

I saw lightning bugs which I hadn't seen since my childhood, and for the first time I saw the attic bedrooms that my father and his siblings used when they were growing up.  I've decided I want an attic like that myself some day.  Nothing like having three or four bedrooms right there in case company comes over.

And oh yes, the public's perception of the president has finally begun to come down.  We in the United States in general seem to have an entirely unjustified reverence for whoever we elect president.  It's as if somehow by electing a president the nation bestows the dignity and honor of the collective populace upon that person.  

It's collectivist nonsense at its finest.  By essentially worshiping a president we worship ourselves, and even worse than worshiping ourselves as individuals, we worship ourselves as a collective we call the "American people".  As fine a country as the United States may be and as unusually common is nobility amongst its people, worship is inappropriate.  Especially when it is of any collective.

Too many of us read way to much meaning into the fact that the president is the only nationally elected public office.  Instead of seeing democracy as a lesser of evils that only represents at best a momentary glimmer of a generally vague public sentiment, too many of us see the president as the people's avatar.

This I suspect explains why approval polls consistently put any congress below the same ratings of their contemporary president.  It's because many people see the president as the human embodiment of the nation as a whole and to assign the president blame for things would be like accepting the blame themselves.  And it is human nature to want to blame others first.

Though I would hope the current president's drop in the polls would actually translate into Americans accepting responsibility for our problems, I suspect that rather they are finding ways to transform Barack Obama from their avatar into a scapegoat.

In other words I look on this good news from 2013 with a scant eye.  If he continues to slide in the polls right onto 2016 I fear the same group of foolish avatar-makers will just find themselves a new one.

What we really need is someone like George Washington who will step in and announce to the American people that no one person can or should be as important as we keep trying to make our presidents.  And that it is not that an individual can ever be so important, but that the individual always is even more so.

Can we hope for that much wisdom in such a high office?  That is my new years wish.

I wish you a happy new year.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

The Divine Fallacy : Not To Be Mistaken For The Divine

It's Christmas Eve and I should probably be doing something other than working on my blog, ah but it's also Tuesday and I'm a little bit OCD as they say.  So here it goes.

My last post about the Onus Probandi fallacy attracted some questions.  The most obvious being about of all things, the spaghetti monster.  Yes, even though I made no mention of that lovable guy he decided to crash my logic party.

For those of you not familiar with the spaghetti monster let me offer a quick explanation.  Some people thought themselves exceptionally clever when they invented a fictional being with god-like powers that lives somewhere out in space beyond our ability to confirm or deny his existence.  They thought they created the perfect answer to the "you can't prove God does not exist" argument.

The spaghetti monster, they would say, was just like God in that his existence could not be disproved, thus to believe in God makes just as much sense as believing in the spaghetti monster.  "Not much", their argument goes.

This was suggested to me in response to my assertion that the burden of proof rests with whoever is attempting to change the other's mind.

They missed the point and on top of that they stepped right into another logical fallacy.  The irony of this is rich since one of the names this fallacy goes by is the Divine fallacy.

Divine fallacy (argument from (personal) incredulity, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Some atheists apparently insist that logic must always make sense to them, which is a fallacy.  I inferred this last week when I wrote,

"Interesting conclusion, but I can't see how they get to it.  And it's not that I'm ignorant or trying to use the fallacious argument that what I personally can't see must not be valid.  But it is in fact that they seem to be using it."

That fallacious argument I was referring to there was the Divine fallacy.  The spaghetti monster is just a clever attempt to frame a logical quandary its creators don't like in a way to make it look ridiculous.  They feel justified in doing it because the implications of the quandary seems ridiculous to them.  But they miss the important point that no matter how ridiculous it may seem to them, the challenge is still before them if they wish to change anyone's mind.

They can't prove God doesn't exist and yet they're partly right in saying they don't need to.  Just as long as their intent is not to persuade.  If it is to persuade, then however they're stuck.  The spaghetti monster can't save them unless they're willing to throw logic to the wind and commit the Divine fallacy.

I can't resist making this one last point, or rather completing a thought started above.  Belief in God has a lot to do with semantics as in how you define Him.  Listen to an atheist some time when he's completing a sentence like this about God, "I don't believe in some guy who ...".  How they complete that often touches on how they define him.  There's a good chance no one believes in the "God" the atheist is describing.  But as for the real God ...

We thank Him for His son.

Merry Christmas!

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Christmas And The Onus Probandi Fallacy

It's that time once again.  What for Eddie Fontaigne to discuss logical fallacies?  Well yes and no.  What I was referring to more precisely is Christmas season and those who feel obliged to make as many people as possible feel their personal discomfort with religion, most specifically Christianity at this time of year.

Besides the pluralist extremists who don't want to hear "merry Christmas" there is a particularly peculiar group of folks who actually wish to attack Christianity.  Not with bombs or guns thankfully but with words and images.

A certain atheist organization posted adds on billboards reading things like, "who needs Jesus during Christmas, nobody", and "OMG there is no god".  And when asked about their intent a representative said they were encouraging people who may feel pressured to act as though they believe in God to resist that pressure.

Well as a Christian myself I certainly wouldn't want anybody to believe in God out of peer pressure.  I especially wouldn't want that as I'm also an individualist of sorts.  And to be fair to atheists in general I want to be careful to note that I'm referring to certain organizations that claim to represent atheist interests, and they are not all atheists.  I'm sure there are many who will see my point below and some who already have.

Anyone who believes in something as important as the existence or non-existence of God out of peer pressure has a rational gap that has nothing to do with theology.  This is someone who either hasn't learned to think for themselves or refuses to.  The former is to be taught and latter to be pitied.

My problem with the reasoning of this atheist organization is the poor reasoning it implies.  Apparently they believe that if people could just be freed of peer pressure in the area of theology there would be more self-professed atheists.  That's quite a claim.  Apparently they believe that human beings left to their own devices would naturally not believe in anything greater than themselves that may be beyond their comprehension.  That such an uninhibited human being would naturally believe themselves capable of understanding anything and everything and that anything they cannot grasp must not exist.

Interesting conclusion, but I can't see how they get to it.  And it's not that I'm ignorant or trying to use the fallacious argument that what I personally can't see must not be valid.  But it is in fact that they seem to be using it.

I often ponder what it is exactly that drives certain atheists to certain faulty arguments, and with such enthusiasm at that, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that certain Christians are also guilty of this, complete with the enthusiasm.

At the core of the debate over the existence of a god (note that I used "a god" and not "God"), is a logical fallacy that both sides trip over a lot, the onus probandi fallacy.

Wikipedia defines it as follows,

"Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion."

Atheists are fond of accusing theists of this fallacy whenever a theist appeals to the logical truism that it is impossible to prove a negative.  The theist will argue that since the atheist cannot prove that a god does not exist, which is logically sound, the atheist loses the debate from the very start.  The atheist will then say the theist is unjustly shifting the burden of proof onto the atheist, thus being guilty of the onus probandi fallacy.

In other words the atheist insists that the only claim in the debate is that a god actually exists and thus it is with the theist that the burden of proof rests.  And I might add that atheists in my experience feel extremely comfortable with this argument.

The problem that both sides encounter here is in how they determine who owns the burden of proof.  Contrary to what many on both sides think, that burden shifts itself according to context and can be on either depending.

The key here is to ask who is making the assertion?  That's dependent on context entirely.  If I wish to convert an atheist through my own wit the burden is on me.  If the atheist wishes to convert me the burden is on her.  Whichever one of us wishes to change the other's mind is the one making the assertion.  If gods exist they do so with or without us proving the fact to someone else.  The only thing up to logical debate is our ideas about them and no person has an over-arching burden to prove their own ideas to anyone but themselves, and if they hold these ideas that's already done.

That then translates into public discourse that if most people in a given group agree on something, no matter if it's true, false, plausible, or implausible, the burden of proof is always on the minority belief.  Majorities aren't always right.  That's an "of course", but what they believe stands in the public's minds without proof.  To argue that something the majority believes is so subjective that they must prove it is arrogance.  To convince you, yes they must prove it, but to live their lives publicly as though it's true, no they don't.

I'm one of those few people that knows the current millennium started 1/1/2001 and not 1/1/2000 and it frustrated me a bit that I had to celebrate that day without most of my fellow humans who had jumped the shark one year earlier.  I was one of those people that failed to convince the rest of humanity of the truth.  That unless we intended to stop following the same calendar we have used for a couple millenia prior, a millenia like a century always starts in its year one, not its year zero.

You probably see the analogy I'm making here.  As right as I was, the burden of proof was on me and other right-headed individuals.  And I believe we failed to accept it.  Instead we just annoyed our friends and colleagues with our arrogance.  "we are right so we don't need to prove what is clearly correct to anyone who will investigate it".  And we lost.

The onus probandi fallacy, remember that the burden of proof has nothing to do with whether your claim is right or wrong.  It has to do with context and perhaps most importantly, if you actually want to change anyone's mind or just annoy them.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

The Reification Of Us All

Around this time last year I did a series of posts about logical fallacies.  One of those posts was my most read blog of all time, thus far.  It was about the regression fallacy.  You can find it listed to the left of this post at the top of the list of my most popular.  It was very relevant when it was written and continues to be.  I'd recommend a read of it to anyone who hasn't already. 

Today I've decided to post a discussion of another logical fallacy.  This time it will be on what is called reification or what is also called hypostatization.

Wikipedia defines it as follows;

"Reification (hypostatization) – a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a "real thing" something which is not a real thing, but merely an idea."

Now where do I see good examples of equating abstractions with things that are concrete or real?  Consider that I describe myself as an individualist and I'll give you three guesses.  The first two wont count.

Between individuals and groups, which is concrete and which is abstract?  Is it possible to find out a group you thought you were in doesn't actually exist?  Of course.  It's probably happened to most of the people who are reading this right now.  e.g. You were put on a committee that was cancelled before it ever met.  It never really existed.  Now is it possible that you don't exist?  I don't write to fictional abstract people so no.

Take that Descartes!  You read my blog therefore you are.  But seriously, the individual is as fundamental to the concrete as it gets.  Groups such as economic classes, racial groups, ethnic groups, religious groups, groups defined by gender or sexual preferences, nations, and communities, these are abstractions by comparison to individuals.

Of course I would be guilty of another logical fallacy if I were to tell you groups are just abstract beliefs or hypothetical constructs.  They are collections of concrete things, most specifically individuals so they are in that sense concrete too.  It's possible to gather a group together in a room with us and point them out without any need of imagination.

But there is still something there that is an abstract belief or hypothetical construct.  And that's the definition we used to determine that what we have before is a group.  Change that definition and we no longer have a group, or maybe we have more than one group, or one that extends beyond the room we're in.  That part is abstract and without both the abstract part and all the concrete parts that were essentially defined into it we don't have a group.

So when someone attempts to apply moral instructions intended for individuals to groups, such as in social justice, that someone becomes guilty of reification or hypostatization.  The same is true of people who pit economic classes or ethnic groups against each other by making it seem that the acts of one person against another is the same as actions of one group against another group, and thus the group they hope to get votes from should "stick it to" some other group.

And it's the fact that groups are half abstract and half concrete that makes this commonly practiced logical fallacy so easy to get away with.  The fact that only the individual is purely concrete becomes clouded in people's minds.  Many people who attempt to argue with the collectivists are accused of not caring about the individuals that make up the collectives; the opposite of the truth.

To understand today's world is to understand logical fallacies.  Here's a big one, reification.  The fallacy is that groups matter as much as individuals.  The truth is that only individuals are real and groups are just abstract groupings.  We must never forget who we should serve. 

Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Revisiting A Day My Life Changed

This is a re-post from almost exactly a year ago.  I don't think I can go too far wrong re-posting this particular entry once a year.  It explains a lot about why I write this blog and do many of the other things I do in my life.  It also allows me to get some much needed rest in recovering from a viral infection.  Flu shots don't seem to do anything about such things.  So with that I hope you find the following to be edifying.

***

Some times I look back at my late and short teaching career and wonder if I ever should have done it. Perhaps, I consider, the time could have been better spent, say, getting my computer science degree sooner, or I could even have started to write sooner, but no. Without that experience there are certain very important things I never would have learned.

As a teacher I was driven to take an interest in the character and destiny of each of my students. I know it sounds a little corny, but what exactly is the universal job description teachers have? Are we not there to help our students by encouraging high character in them, and then to train them in what they need to know and master in order to achieve the personal goals that derives from that high character? These are the sorts of things only a teacher or parent is likely to ever commit to, and having never been a parent, teaching was the reason for me. So in spite of my normal tendency to simply allow fools to be fools, I was driven by a job description to try and save them.

I remember in particular one middle-school student of mine that was a free spirit. He was smart, got good grades on his assignments, and was generally respectful toward his teachers, but from the point of view of my lead teacher and the school's principal he was sorely lacking in two very important areas. He was terribly disorganized to the point that the contents of his desk often overflowed into other students' spaces. That really annoyed them, but the second area of lacking was what really worried them. He tended to be a loner. He seldom associated with other students and when he did, the other students would become annoyed with something he'd say or do. Nothing serious. They were little things I don't remember exactly, but like say playing four square and not seeming to try, or starting to do his imitation of a flying saucer sound. The only thing I do remember is that there was little to no consistency or pattern in these things. He might frustrate students not trying one day and then compete in earnest the next, or just not play on another. In a nut shell, he was not just a loner, but a very creative one.

The moment of my enlightenment came as I was grading papers after school and he and his parents were meeting in the next room with the principal and my lead teacher. I heard bits and pieces of what was being said at first. It was an old story.  For years he had attended this K-8 school, and for years the faculty had worked with him on his two shortfalls. The parents said things I could tell they realized they had said several times before, but the teacher and the principal sounded more determined to make progress. They noted it seemed that none had been made.

The principal, a woman I had great respect for, was talking when suddenly this young 7th grade fellow shouted “shut up!”. I was horrified, both because he was being so extremely disrespectful and because I was worried for him and his future at the school. I was tempted to charge into the room, but wasn't sure what I could or would do, calm him down or scold him. I decided to stay at my grading work, but couldn't avoid hearing what was going on in the next room. He went on to tell them how it made him feel to be continually picked at, and asked them, still yelling and angry, to “just leave me alone!”. I heard adult voices, occasionally his parents but mostly my co-workers, attempting to reason with him, but he wasn't having any of it. He only continued to tell them off.

It was then that it happened, the thing that really mattered to me and my future, the proverbial lights came on. The words came out of me like an involuntary sneeze, “you tell them”. I caught them enough that I couldn't be heard through the walls. It scared me for a split second, but then I felt something quite different than fear. I felt free and enlightened.

This young man had spent the last several years of his life under constant attack for in essence just being an individual. Sure, organization is important, but not enough to justify years and years of nit-picking and threats. And sure, it's wise to worry a little when a child is left out of social circles, but not when it's his choice and when he has no ill will or feelings toward anyone. His stand in that meeting, taken out of context is just a student being extremely disrespectful and insubordinate, but in context it was the Boston Tea Party, Lexington-Concord, Rosa Parks in the front of the bus, and Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn. He was expelled that day, and I called the parents shortly after to offer any and all help I could give them. My help was minor, but I was there to see him go on with his life, free of those who had sought to take away his individuality. To the best of my knowledge he's been very successful at being himself, and more than that.

One of the most significant measures of success in a person's life is who they've effected in positive ways, and just how positive. In this young man's case, he effected me. His moment of taking that stand that day showed me just how important the individual is. Without his stand, I probably wouldn't be writing right now. As a matter of fact I hate to think of what I might be doing, something meaningless, something depressing, something wrong.

I'd be so bold as to thank him by name, but I don't want to draw in the people I worked for and with at that time. That moment was also the moment I realized I was working with the wrong people, at least for someone like myself who cherishes the individual. So I'll leave it at this until I manage to contact him again more directly and less publicly, thank you, and sorry I was unable to see things before that day, but that wasn't going to happen without you doing it. The individual is bigger than all of us.

***

I have not been able to contact him up to this point in time.  It's probably just as well though.  Such is the nature of providence.