Bert Agonistes - an Automatic Opponent Confronted

Bert is a hard man to argue with, because he just ignores the points that give him most trouble, and twists the rest. I���ve yet to see him attempt to defend his gratuitous ad hominem swipe at my friend Christopher Booker, a distinguished and courageous journalist of vast experience whom Bert dismisses as ��� a bit of a loon���. Yet he has also not apologised for it.

 

This is why I ceaselessly remind him of his absurd posturing some years ago about the incontestable role of the EU and its Landfill Directive in forcing this country to change the way it collects rubbish. This is important because it is an example of the EU���s penetration into every aspect of life here, often unrecognised by those who are affected. The point about this is that Britain, unlike the EU sponsors of the Directive, could perfectly well continue to use landfill to dispose of garbage without any problem or environmental harm. But it faces huge fines if it does so, because it is governed by laws made elsewhere and in the interests of others. Bert has for some years avoided admitting that he was mistaken in claiming this change did not originate in the EU. This is because he never admits he was mistaken. He is now reduced to claiming that the matter is trivial. In which case, why did he engage in arguing about it in the first place, and very vigorously at that?

 

The truth is that he contradicts me for the sake of it.

 

Take the issue of Islamist terrorists all being habitual consumers of powerful mind-altering drugs.

Rather than address this interesting fact with an open mind, my automatic opponents, and the cannabis comment warriors, immediately create straw men, claiming or at least implying that I have declared unequivocally that drugs are the only reason for these outrages.

 

I have not said this and do not believe it.

 

I do not even *know* how drugs affect the brains of those who take them. This is mainly because so much about mental illness and the action of drugs upon the brain is unknowable in the current state of scientific understanding. Correlation is our main means of making this link.

 

Big Dope Comment warriors and other contrary persons immediately say such things as ���Correlation is not causation���. Indeed it is not. I am well aware of it, hence the caution of my argument.

 

But they omit to mention that it is, even so, the foundation of epidemiology and that correlation is not necessarily *not* causation. They also put up another destructive and irresponsible argument : all these killers also ate bread or consumed mother���s milk. This correlation is just as strong. Both are therefore equally meaningless.

 

This argument is plainly false. But how do we demonstrate that?

 

I sought to do so thus: ��� Without an established causal link, [the connection between cannabis use and mental illness] remains a matter of conjecture, though the strong and plausible correlation between the persistent habitual use of powerful mind-altering drugs and irrational behaviour is not much less indicative, in my view, than a correlation between a hammer blow and the dent on the surface struck by the hammer. It is surely persuasive to anyone with an open mind.���

 

I should have added that, unless you have actually observed that particular hammer striking that particular surface, the evidence remains just that ��� a persuasive correlation, not a proven hypothesis. But I thought this was clear to any fair-minded person, as I was still consciously and deliberately using the word ���persuasive��� rather than any expression suggesting certainty.

 

The parallel is, however, quite clear. It is not exactly surprising to find that the use of powerful mind-altering drugs, which observably affect brain function (we know that they do. We just don���t know how)  is associated with subsequent mental illness. It would be surprising if , say, foot massage, carpentry or a love of flowers were associated with such an outcome, there being no similarly obvious connection between the two.  

 

This passage followed one in which I pointed out that I was not ���convinced��� of this link. This is not because I don���t myself find it persuasive (for I obviously do) , but because I treat, as far as I can, my own arguments with the same rigour I apply to those of my opponents.

 

I have often found that caution, modesty and honesty in argument does not produce a comparable response in some opponents. Bert is one of these. Rather than recognise that I was treating him as a fair-minded adult, Bert responded thus:

 

���Mr Hitchens is attempting to have his cake and eat it. He writes that ���Without an established causal link, [the link between cannabis and terrorism] remains a matter of conjecture��� ��� a cautious and sensible position. He goes on, though, to compare the ���strong and plausible correlation��� between the two with the correlation between a hammer blow and the dent on the surface struck by the hammer ��� ie not a matter of conjecture at all. He concludes that to ���anyone with an open mind��� ��� ie good people like him ��� this is ���surely persuasive���. I disagree.���

 

But with what is he disagreeing?  The fact that it is *persuasive* does not mean that it is *conclusive*. What is the point of using precise and careful English if one���s opponent ignores the distinctions between such words? Nor do I say that it is conclusive.

 

I readily agree that I wish it were, for then we would not be in such danger of legalising the very drugs which I suspect of causing this danger.

 

But I recognise that it is not. Nobody is compelled to agree with me by the available facts and the process of logic. All that I ask is that they recognise that this is a reasonable and sustainable contention, about a matter of some urgency, which ought to be explored by an inquiry. Bert offers no arguments against such an inquiry, or against taking the matter seriously as a possibility. Despite strong evidence that this *might* be important, Bert has concluded that it is not important. His only real argument for this, it seems to me, is that I say it is important and that therefore it is not.

 

In face of my caution and admission that my argument is incomplete and needs further evidence, Bert does not respond with a civilised and open-minded  ���Yes, let���s agree it needs to be looked into��� he just concludes (without adducing any reason) that I am wrong.

 

What���s more, he has his own explanation, untroubled by any modesty or diffidence:

 

He says : ���To my open mind ��� I do not have any interest, financial or otherwise in illegal drugs ��� the main motivator for these acts of terrorism seems to be religion ��� a horribly perverted interpretation of religion thankfully shared by very few.���

 

Well, the openness of Bert���s mind seems to me to be a matter for dispute and further detailed discussion elsewhere. But, leaving that aside, what does he mean by ���main motivator���? How does one measure precisely what the ���main��� motivation is at any given time? Are we even discussing motivation? A political motivation may express itself in loyalty to our cause, passionate public declaration, emotional engagement, but yet not take the shape of organised or individual violence.

 

In my experience, most normal human beings are strongly predisposed against violence, and need to have their inhibitions removed before they will contemplate it. Military discipline, often combined in combat with issues of rum, overcomes these inhibitions in many, as does the noise and fighting madness of war. But these forces don���t operate on individual living in advanced urban societies. There are, I should calculate, many thousands of young men in this country who have been wooed by Wahhabi preachers and have in whole or part accepted their stern and puritanical message. Yet there is no evidence that most of them have ever considered, let alone involved themselves in, homicidal violence.

 

Those who have taken violent action (with very few exceptions) turn out, for much of their lives to have been alienated petty criminals, usually unable to hold down jobs, often gang members and abusers of mind-altering drugs. In the recent Paris outrages, the killers seem to have continued this way of life right up to the moment when they chose to murder their fellow-creatures in circumstances of great cruelty.

 

I really don���t see how this squares with Bert���s contention that Islamist fervour (which frowns on this way of life) is the *main motivator*. Were it so, then surely it would be self-disciplined and abstemious young men known for their piety and puritanism who would be the main actors. It isn���t.

 

Yet the response of Bert to this point is simultaneously to ignore and to twist it (he ignores it *by* twisting it,  a technique in which he is expert. Thus he appears to be responsive without actually responding)

 

���I���m struggling to understand the final paragraph of your response. Is it that these terrorists cannot have been real Muslims if they drank etc (the ���no true Scotsman��� fallacy), and so their faith cannot have been any motive for their behaviour. That seems to be an attempt to ascribe rational thinking to people who are clearly not rational, and you don���t need drugs to think and behave irrationally. I have not seen any reports that any of these Islamic terrorists have not genuinely believed that they were acting for their faith ��� however sick and twisted we think that this sort of reasoning is.���

 

I don���t know what his struggle is, except to avoid engaging with arguments he cannot answer. He says that Islamist fervour is the main motivation for these murders. Yet the culprits of the murders are , in most cases, demonstrably not devout Muslims. They are the opposite. This has nothing whatever to do with the ���no true Scotsman��� fallacy. It is a statement of fact which flatly contradicts his claim about motivation ( ���the main motivator for these acts of terrorism seems to be religion��� ) As for 'I have not seen any reports that any of these Islamic terrorists have not genuinely believed that they were acting for their faith', nor have I. But I have seen plenty of reports suggesting that, in practice, they are not especially devout individuals. This is demonstrable.