This will very likely be my last update for a while, at least until I get back. Toothpick and I are going on what promises to be a fantastic European tour. On May 30th we're flying into Barcelona, staying for five days, then flying into Florence for another 4 days, and then on to Rome for an additional 5 days. I'm rather excited, as is she.
In other news... last night I had my first match on my pool team. I'm playing for the Ace bar team, captained by my good friend Waxangel. Since it was my first league match ever, it was a best-out-of-five match. I lost the first game somewhat handily, and won the second. I would have won the third but scratched as I hit the 8 ball in. I won the fourth game on a technicality and the last one came down to the very end. All in all it was a lot of fun, I'm looking forward to more games, and hopefully winning a few.
I've also stepped up the pace on my book reading. Since finishing The Origins of Totalitarianism it's been a nice change to fly through several shorter, easier books in the mean time. One that I enjoyed in particular was a recommendation from either bean or TheFuckOffKid, I can't remember who. Neither would surprise, as they both have a superior grasp on logic. Anyway, the book is called Crimes Against Logic and is an often scathing but frequently hilarious account of gross logical errors that people, even "important" people frequently make when they present their cases for whatever it is they happen to be supporting at the time.
I'll let you all read the book if you want to learn more about logical fallacies (and I recommend it as a fast, entertaining and informative read) but what struck me particularly about the book was the forward. In it the author writes that his increased vigilance in pursuing and correcting logical errors has led to "increasingly fewer friends, who yawn and roll their eyes as [he] explains [his] concerns -- or 'rants' as the less kind among them say." While there's certain a degree of good natured self-effacement in this statement, it is also likely based on some truth. As anyone else who devotes some time and effort to crafting an opinion based on logic and rationality, only to have it questioned by someone committing logical fallacies and not caring that they are doing so has undoubtedly learned. In addition, pointing out those logical fallacies often garners one of two irritating responses - first, an assertion by the individual that they are entitled to their own opinion. Second, open hostility and an ad hominem attack on you for insisting on pointing out their logical transgression.
The first option is thoroughly debunked in the book - yes, everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, but if you wish that opinion to be considered in an arena where people are supporting their opinions with evidence and logic, then you had better do the same and meet those criteria with your opinion, or keep it to yourself.
The second option is often split up into two separate but related accusations. First off - that you, as the challenger of their sacrosanct opinions, are only interested in bolstering your own ego by shooting down their opinion and upholding your own. The sad truth is that there is often an element of this in many intelligent people, and pride is a common enough fault. I think it would be massive self-deception were we all to claim that there's no positive feeling that comes from "winning" an argument. But I think there's more to it than that, which is raised by the second accusation (or question, really.) And that is "Why do you care?" Why bother trying to change someone's opinion?
It's a valid question, and one that I think bears answering. Why does it bother us so much to see people espousing ridiculous views based on nothing but hearsay and authority fallacies? Why not let them be off on their merry, idiotic ways, content in our own knowledge that they have no idea what they're talking about? The answer lies in a paraphrase of a quotation from one of my favorite people, "Illogical opinions anywhere are a threat to logic everywhere." Ideas have a way of catching on and spreading through our collective knowledge base. Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" as a way to illustrate how an idea can replicate and spread like a biological organism moving from host to host. Why do some memes take hold while others don't? There's no clear consensus yet as to why they do - but a quick look at our common knowledge demonstrates that a meme need not be either factually or logically coherent to take hold. And once a meme is in place, forget it. Getting rid of it can be nearly impossible. Let's look at a few just for illustrative purposes:
"Saddam Hussein was either partly or wholly responsible for the 9/11 attacks." There is not a shred of factual evidence to back up this claim, and yet poling data has shown that a majority of Americans believe to be true. It is logically inconsistent as well, since bin Laden had railed against secular middle eastern leaders almost as often as he decried western leaders. Since Hussein was a secular leader, he had no reason to ally himself with bin Laden, as he was likely somewhere down the list as one of the next targets.
"Approximately 50% of American adults believe in some form of extrasensory perception, or ESP." This, in spite of the fact that there has never been a single documented, verifiable, and repeatable demonstration of ESP-related phenomena, despite numerous efforts to do so.
Those are just a tiny smattering of the innumerable logical fallacies that we're confronted with on a daily basis. Why do people continue to believe in them? Likely for a variety of reasons, but one of them is undoubtedly that it's easier to do so. It's easy to believe that there is some mysterious, unknowable "magic" force that makes things happen, rather than having to study the sometimes tedious equations and theory that underly physics, which actually does explain how things work in the universe. It's easy to just accept what an authority figure says rather than having to go through the drudgery of investigating the claim on one's own to determine whether what they say has any merit. Once you head down the path of taking the easy way out, there is no longer any reason to expect rigorous proof for anything; one fallacy is as good as another - which is to say, not at all. And someone willing to accept a logical fallacy on its face is easily suggestible and manipulated. So it is in our own interest, and the interest of everyone else, to keep people on their toes logically and rationally, even if it makes them temporarily uncomfortable by challenging their personally held beliefs. History has shown that a suggestible and credulous mob is capable of the most heinous acts one can conceive.
In other news... last night I had my first match on my pool team. I'm playing for the Ace bar team, captained by my good friend Waxangel. Since it was my first league match ever, it was a best-out-of-five match. I lost the first game somewhat handily, and won the second. I would have won the third but scratched as I hit the 8 ball in. I won the fourth game on a technicality and the last one came down to the very end. All in all it was a lot of fun, I'm looking forward to more games, and hopefully winning a few.
I've also stepped up the pace on my book reading. Since finishing The Origins of Totalitarianism it's been a nice change to fly through several shorter, easier books in the mean time. One that I enjoyed in particular was a recommendation from either bean or TheFuckOffKid, I can't remember who. Neither would surprise, as they both have a superior grasp on logic. Anyway, the book is called Crimes Against Logic and is an often scathing but frequently hilarious account of gross logical errors that people, even "important" people frequently make when they present their cases for whatever it is they happen to be supporting at the time.
I'll let you all read the book if you want to learn more about logical fallacies (and I recommend it as a fast, entertaining and informative read) but what struck me particularly about the book was the forward. In it the author writes that his increased vigilance in pursuing and correcting logical errors has led to "increasingly fewer friends, who yawn and roll their eyes as [he] explains [his] concerns -- or 'rants' as the less kind among them say." While there's certain a degree of good natured self-effacement in this statement, it is also likely based on some truth. As anyone else who devotes some time and effort to crafting an opinion based on logic and rationality, only to have it questioned by someone committing logical fallacies and not caring that they are doing so has undoubtedly learned. In addition, pointing out those logical fallacies often garners one of two irritating responses - first, an assertion by the individual that they are entitled to their own opinion. Second, open hostility and an ad hominem attack on you for insisting on pointing out their logical transgression.
The first option is thoroughly debunked in the book - yes, everyone is entitled to hold an opinion, but if you wish that opinion to be considered in an arena where people are supporting their opinions with evidence and logic, then you had better do the same and meet those criteria with your opinion, or keep it to yourself.
The second option is often split up into two separate but related accusations. First off - that you, as the challenger of their sacrosanct opinions, are only interested in bolstering your own ego by shooting down their opinion and upholding your own. The sad truth is that there is often an element of this in many intelligent people, and pride is a common enough fault. I think it would be massive self-deception were we all to claim that there's no positive feeling that comes from "winning" an argument. But I think there's more to it than that, which is raised by the second accusation (or question, really.) And that is "Why do you care?" Why bother trying to change someone's opinion?
It's a valid question, and one that I think bears answering. Why does it bother us so much to see people espousing ridiculous views based on nothing but hearsay and authority fallacies? Why not let them be off on their merry, idiotic ways, content in our own knowledge that they have no idea what they're talking about? The answer lies in a paraphrase of a quotation from one of my favorite people, "Illogical opinions anywhere are a threat to logic everywhere." Ideas have a way of catching on and spreading through our collective knowledge base. Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" as a way to illustrate how an idea can replicate and spread like a biological organism moving from host to host. Why do some memes take hold while others don't? There's no clear consensus yet as to why they do - but a quick look at our common knowledge demonstrates that a meme need not be either factually or logically coherent to take hold. And once a meme is in place, forget it. Getting rid of it can be nearly impossible. Let's look at a few just for illustrative purposes:
"Saddam Hussein was either partly or wholly responsible for the 9/11 attacks." There is not a shred of factual evidence to back up this claim, and yet poling data has shown that a majority of Americans believe to be true. It is logically inconsistent as well, since bin Laden had railed against secular middle eastern leaders almost as often as he decried western leaders. Since Hussein was a secular leader, he had no reason to ally himself with bin Laden, as he was likely somewhere down the list as one of the next targets.
"Approximately 50% of American adults believe in some form of extrasensory perception, or ESP." This, in spite of the fact that there has never been a single documented, verifiable, and repeatable demonstration of ESP-related phenomena, despite numerous efforts to do so.
Those are just a tiny smattering of the innumerable logical fallacies that we're confronted with on a daily basis. Why do people continue to believe in them? Likely for a variety of reasons, but one of them is undoubtedly that it's easier to do so. It's easy to believe that there is some mysterious, unknowable "magic" force that makes things happen, rather than having to study the sometimes tedious equations and theory that underly physics, which actually does explain how things work in the universe. It's easy to just accept what an authority figure says rather than having to go through the drudgery of investigating the claim on one's own to determine whether what they say has any merit. Once you head down the path of taking the easy way out, there is no longer any reason to expect rigorous proof for anything; one fallacy is as good as another - which is to say, not at all. And someone willing to accept a logical fallacy on its face is easily suggestible and manipulated. So it is in our own interest, and the interest of everyone else, to keep people on their toes logically and rationally, even if it makes them temporarily uncomfortable by challenging their personally held beliefs. History has shown that a suggestible and credulous mob is capable of the most heinous acts one can conceive.
VIEW 25 of 41 COMMENTS
--l*P
Best birthday ever.