Political Philosophy and Ethics discussion
Both Pol. and Ethical Philosophy
>
Reason, Informal Logic, Evidence, and Critical Thinking
message 401:
by
Alan, Founding Moderator and Author
(new)
Dec 09, 2020 12:56PM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Alan wrote: "10/25/2018 Note (revised 12/1/2018):"Formal logic involves symbolic deductive logic applicable to mathematics and computers. Informal logic includes inductive logic, the evaluation of evidence, and critical thinking. ...
... I have no problem with discussions of informal (nonsymbolic) logic here. Abstruse questions of theoretical, symbolic logic should, however, be avoided as being irrelevant to the subject matter of this forum. Basically, the test is whether a post relates to questions about human ethics and/or human government. If it does not, it belongs elsewhere."
The test mentioned in the last sentence here is a good and appropriate one. But the previous exclusion of "symbolic logic" as an appropriate topic may be a bit too restrictive in prohibiting any discussion or description of the rich history of deontic logics and their use in explicating concepts and principles of ethical reasoning: such concepts as permissible/impermissible, obligatory/omissible, ought, must, supererogatory, etc.
In full disclosure, I've never felt that deontic logic has ever led to a usable (practical) system of formal logic, but if we're talking about its contribution to elucidating the concepts and principles involved in ethical reasoning, it definitely has had an effect on philosophical thought in the area of ethics and political philosophy.
There is a bit of a danger here, I think, in attempting to draw too fine a line between formal and informal logic -- in part because considerations of issues and principles of informal logic have always made their way into formal representations, and likewise results in formal areas have made their way back into informal representations and applications. But regardless of that, a fundamental problem of attempting to include any discussion of formal logic in a venue such as this is that the formal logic simply can't be represented in a readable and intelligible manner, owing primarily to issues of typography (or resorting to attempts to insert images of various sorts). And so the injunction to avoid "symbolic" representations (while conceding that even the use of written English is a "symbolic" representation), is a good one -- in favor of "natural language expressions".
Still, there remain some formal principles where a kind of natural language expression of them can be quite beneficial in explicating fundamental concepts -- which is what philosophy is about, to a significant degree. And these have found fruitful treatment in such areas as formal deontic logic.
Mod
As I said, "Basically, the test is whether a post relates to questions about human ethics and/or human government. If it does not, it belongs elsewhere." I don't want this forum to become distracted by symbolic or extremely theoretical logic. In other words, this is not a forum for elaboration of mathematical or quasi-mathematical constructions. I'm not at all familiar with "deontic logic." If you can keep it down to earth and avoid symbolic logic, I guess it's OK. But keep in mind that the purpose of this forum is inquiry into questions of ethics and political philosophy as they present themselves, in the first instance, to ordinary human beings. Showing how common ethical or political statements are irrational or illogical is one thing. Building a whole theoretical system for academic cogitation and speculation is something else. If it seems to me that you are going too far in the latter direction, I'll let you know.
I am presenting a Zoom lecture to a scholarly group in a couple of hours and accordingly will not be able to respond further until after that meeting.
Alan E. Johnson
Moderator
Mod
Gary, I have now had time to read your Goodreads profile and also look at a Wikipedia article on deontic logic.
Perhaps I can explain my concept of informal logic with the following example.
We have just seen (on January 6, 2021) a violent attack by a coalition of insurrectionary groups against the United States Capitol—the most dangerous attack on the Capitol since it was burned by the British in the War of 1812. Five people, including a police officer, died in this insurrection. A gallows was constructed to hang Mike Pence, and the insurgents were also looking for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and others. Videos recorded the attackers chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” and at least one of them said “Kill them all.” The purpose of the extremist groups who perpetrated this assault was to stop the constitutional proceedings of the Joint Session of Congress, meeting to count the electoral votes resulting from the recent election. They were intent on overthrowing the government and apparently believed, mistakenly, that the military and police would join them.
Numerous reports (which I won’t take time to detail here) reveal that these people were motivated by irrational and evidence-free conspiracy theories, fueled by right-wing media and Donald Trump. Perhaps the craziest of these groups were the QAnon people, whose fantasies are totally untethered to reality and whose representatives Trump welcomed into his Oval Office in the waning days of his administration.
This is the latest and most striking instance of a trend of increasingly irrational thinking in our society. The purpose of this topic is to understand and, if possible, correct such absurdity. I am interested in pursuing questions why such people think the way they do and why they were not properly educated with facts regarding American government and history. I am also interested in how critical thinking can be introduced in public school curricula so that people will not be swayed by demagogues and authoritarian leaders.
I understand that, as a philosophy professor, your interests are much more theoretical and academic. That is fine, but that is not what this forum is about. You might be better off contributing to the “Philosophy” Goodreads group, where no such restrictions exist.
Alan:Thanks for these revealing responses concerning your concept of informal logic and how you see the formal/informal distinction. I do see where you're coming from and apologize for mistaking your understanding of logic and what this means to you. We are, in fact, in very strong agreement about the importance of informal logic.
Readers interested in pursuing a fuller understanding of that topic and its use might be interested in looking at a few very readable and easily understood sources that I don't see on your bookshelves ...
The first is Jean Buridan's (14th century) Sophisms on Meaning and Truth -- now somewhat difficult to find, but worth the effort. The second is the excellent and contemporary The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts and Methods, which is the most complete and careful presentation of informal reasoning of which I'm aware. (This is not the book of a similar title on your bookshelf.)
And then there is The Web of Belief, which addresses precisely the issues of interest to you in the areas of rational belief, argument, and inference -- again, in a purely informal and transparent manner, intended specifically for those with no prior background in philosophy or logic of any kind. It's really a wonderful little book in the area of rational belief and justification, written by two excellent philosophers as an introduction to such concepts for undergraduate students of the humanities.
And if I may humbly suggest ... a look at my False Wisdom: The principles and practice of pseudo-philosophy. A careful (though informal!) distinction between formal and informal logic may be found on pp. 29-30 , and a brief mention (no scary symbols!) can be found on pp. 58-65 in the context of my discussion of consistency and an opinion of Ralph Waldo Emerson's view of consistency offered by Antonin Scalia -- certainly one of the most noted jurists of our time. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to view False Wisdom as an extended explication of "informal logic" and (in its final three chapters) an intense application of that to real-world cases (involving, for example, the case of Keith Raniere and NXIVM, and the reading of Ayn Rand's philosophical works).
One minor factual correction: I am not a professor of philosophy, do not pretend to be one, and have not been one for ... oh ... about 40 years now. My professional life is pretty much an open book on the Web, but anyone interested in the (rather boring) details should go to my False Wisdom blog and follow the links there to my sites on PhilPapers, and ResearchGate. I've been applying the methods of philosophy and rational inference and justification in the real world for quite a long time. Indeed, that goal was precisely what stimulated me to leave academia so long ago.
Mod
Thanks for these revealing responses concerning your concept of informal logic and how you see the formal/informal distinction. I do see where you're coming from and apologize for mistaking ..."
Many thanks, Gary, for your explanation. I'll check out the books you mentioned.
Mod
Accordingly, I would recommend a refocus on both American and world history (they were both required year-long courses in my day)—not the rote memorization of detailed, boring, and sometimes trivial facts (though some knowledge of basic facts is important) but a more focused study of the important episodes. I would especially recommend, in this connection, an in-depth study of totalitarianism and authoritarianism—the cult of personality, ideology as religion, the abandonment of “bourgeois” norms and laws (constitutional democracy), and so forth. This could all be done in the context of the study of such dictators as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the North Korean Kim dynasty. It could be reinforced in a mandatory course on government/civics, by contrasting democratic constitutionalism to such regimes. At some point, either in these courses or in a literature course, every student should read George Orwell’s 1984—not as a story but as a work of political philosophy.
I propose the foregoing without having any knowledge of what goes on in today’s elementary and secondary classrooms. Accordingly, I welcome input by those having more knowledge than I about contemporary education.
Mod
I just read this interesting article about how some teachers handled the January 6, 2021 insurrection with their classes.
Alan wrote: "ADDENDUM TO MY PRECEDING POST:I just read this interesting article about how some teachers handled the January 6, 2021 insurrection with their classes."
So, just to be clear ... they waited through riots in major cities, looting, arson, and violence, before "discussing", "modeling", and "teaching" issues pertaining to civics and the maintenance and requirements of democracy?
Mod
It's not clear from the article the extent to which they had been teaching these concepts before these events. Interestingly, this article is in a Missouri newspaper and relates to school events occurring in Missouri. It is my understanding that Trumpism is strong in that state, and I wouldn't be surprised if these teachers received from pushback from parents or political officials.
That newspaper is also in Columbia, MO -- which is the home of the gigantic University of Missouri campus. So both the tone and the content of the article is colored heavily by the academic community (and surrounding population). It also doesn't truly reflect educational and public attitudes occurring throughout MO. My mother's family was from NE Missouri (Kirksville), my mother and father met in St. Louis during WWII, and my sister has stayed in touch with the family for decades (including a number who were teachers both in MO and CA).If by "Trumpism" you mean to refer to the general feelings, beliefs, and political inclinations of the rural population of Missouri (which is most of Missouri) -- which were in place before Trump and will remain in place long after Trump, and are better and more accurately referred to as "traditional" values as contrasted with "progressive" values -- then, yes, that population would "push back" on any pejorative account of what civics is or should be. But that pushback isn't likely to have taken place in Columbia, which -- like any university town nowadays -- maintains its own distinctive set of values, heavily influenced (if not dominated) by those of the university.
Also, in full disclosure, in the summer of 1966 I worked as the assistant to the accountant, for the St. Louis office of the Neighborhood Youth Corps -- part of Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society". It provided me with substantial insight into both state and federal politics of the time. This may be somewhat out of date at present. I certainly hope so. :-)
There is a false equivalency comparing the protests last summer to the insurrection on January 6. Let’s be clear about that.
Mod
I wrote the foregoing before reading Brad’s immediately preceding post. I agree with Brad, except that I reject violence, period. From what I have read, it appears that both left and right extremists took over some of last year’s Black Lives Matter protests and turned them into violent events. Again, I reject violence from both the right and the left. However, at this time, it appears that the greatest danger is from the right, given their proclamations and well-organized violent acts of “civil war” against the Constitution and government and their explicit commitments to white supremacy, authoritarianism, and theocracy.
Mod
And, as Brad indicates, the January 6 violence was an actual insurrection against the Constitution and government, not random acts of violence against commercial properties and so forth. The insane fanaticism of the January 6 assault on the Capitol is well documented by this January 28, 2021 New York Times article, which is based on a video released by the government in a prosecution of one of the insurgents. There are many other videos of these events, showing, by the insurgents’ own recorded words, that their intent was to assassinate the vice president and legislators (“kill them all,” one participant shouted) and overthrow the government. Evidently, they expected the military and the police to support them. This was but one of their many delusions. This was treason and sedition, not mere criminal activity.
The people of this country have never been attracted to violent left-wing ideologies (with a few exceptions, perhaps, during the Great Depression). The American people generally have never been attracted to Marxism or any variant thereof. However, history records episode after episode in American history in which extremist right-wing ideologies have taken hold among substantial portions of the American public. Today, we are witnessing one such episode, the main historical precedent for which appears to be the nineteenth-century Civil War.
Mod
My apologies for citing articles that are behind a paywall, but I think that both the Washington Post and the New York Times allow a limited number of free accesses per month.
Brad wrote: "There is a false equivalency comparing the protests last summer to the insurrection on January 6. Let’s be clear about that."Well, I wasn't drawing an equivalence. But certainly there are some remarkable and relevant similarities -- particularly given your own observations and characterizations of events.
You can play semantic games by calling one thing a "protest" and another an "insurrection", but if we're pretending that it's violence and the rule and equitable application of the law, and protection of our democracy that are the fundamental issues, that kind of attempt at a purely rhetorical distinction is a misleading and disingenuous approach. The acts of violence, for example, were hardly "random", but in fact were highly organized and targeted. And in fact a number of them were specifically directed at government institutions (police stations and buildings housing government agencies, and then ultimately the homes and persons of politicians and office-holders).
So if you strip away the pejorative rhetoric (of "protest" in one case and "insurrection" in the other, etc.), it takes a pretty fine eye to make any kind of moral or legal distinction between the two types of events. At best you might make an argument that there was a difference of degree involved (in some sense), but that, of course is irrelevant to the issues of lawlessness and attack on government itself.
And (partially in response to Alan's response), my point isn't that the teachers shouldn't be lauded for teaching civics and using current events to do that, but that there's something disingenuous about an article which lauds them for doing it with respect to one event of lawlessness and violence while (apparently) ignoring others in the same time frame and context. I say "apparently" because the article does not mention anything of their prior teaching of civics or their use of other recent events involving violence and lawlessness that were in fact considerably more widespread and repeated in multiple locations. This is at best disingenuous on the part of the article's author, but it then also has to make one at least a bit skeptical of the objectivity and moral stance of the teachers.
Along those lines, and given the obvious relevant similarities, the use of such language in one context but not another of phrases like "civil war" is simply pejorative and inflammatory -- and doesn't contribute to a rational evaluation of either facts, emotions, or the law. To further draw a direct analogy to the Civil War is preposterous (and again simply rhetorical and inflammatory, rather than rational and based on any reasonable factual comparisons).
Gentlemen: These are not political points I'm making. They're points about rational argument, and the use of emotionally loaded terms to describe events. You can't champion rationality and objectivity, and then "argue" in this sophistical and rhetorical manner -- which simply amounts to an ad hominem attack on those you view as opponents, or a case of special pleading to defend those you may favor. If you prize rationality and the correct and valid use of informal logic, this is where that rubber meets the road of consistency and truth.
For my part, I condemn ALL of that violence and would strip from ALL discussion of it any references to the political inclinations of the participants as "conservative", "Marxist", "right", "left", "right-wing", "left-wing", etc. That would be a step in the direction of objectivity, the abandonment of unhelpful rhetoric, and a fully equitable approach to all those involved. But so far, I'm not seeing that here. If you can make distinction only using pejorative and emotive terminology, rhetoric, and loose analogies, then those aren't real distinctions. And they don't serve your own goals.
There is a profound difference between a protest where unplanned violence occurs and an organized violent attack on a branch of our government to prevent a constitutionally mandated act from occurring with the goal of causing the government to fail. If that difference eludes you, then god help us.
Mod
As I stated, I condemn violence from the Left as well as the Right, and I do not excuse the violence in Portland and elsewhere. All lawbreakers should be prosecuted (unless, as in the old-time South, the laws themselves target disfavored groups). But the violent left-wing activists were not trying to overthrow the government and were not trying to assassinate the vice president, senators, and representatives and interrupt constitutionally mandated procedures. It is thus a false equivalence, and the Civil War is, indeed, an apt comparison. In fact, the January 6 insurgents carried Confederate flags and installed them in the Capitol building—something not even the Confederates were able to do during the Civil War. The Confederate flags, along with the Christian signs and White Supremacist and neo-Nazi insignia, showed quite clearly their inspiration and their intent.
Gary (post #426) , I appreciate your detail and efforts to be precise.I have, however, one question about your first paragraph: "Well, I wasn't drawing an equivalence. But certainly there are some remarkable and relevant similarities -- particularly given your own observations and characterizations of events."
Here, you appear to distinguish "equivalence" from "similarities." There were "similarities" but not "equivalence." Later, you mention the possibility of a difference in degree, but do not elaborate and brush it aside as irrelevant.
Precisely, then, what is the difference that explains why there is not an "equivalence" even though there are "similarities"?
Myself as well --I appreciate the information Gary contributes on the central Midwestern mindset (his post #420 ). As I've not addressed Gary yet in this forum, let me also welcome him. I think he can share some rich perspectives and I look forward to more of his posts.If I may in turn, ask a related question (I ask this of anyone participating here) about the conservative reaction in general, to the Capitol fracas.
What moral stance can the country's most vociferous right-wing take to an event like this which indemnifies the broad base of their philosophy?
What face can they put on it? Do they repudiate the act? Do they make excuses for it? Do they shirk merely from the tactics chosen? Do they resort to a 'No-True-Scotsman'?
It seems to me that any leading conservative from the camp of 'sobriety, family values, and fiscal responsibility' (things arguably 'good for the country') would not now be able to separate that careful position from the ugliest factions in the same party. If they can draw such a line, how are they doing so? And, is it being swallowed?
It also seems to me that this situation ('out-of-control' factions) is just an echo of what must have once transpired in Rome, Florence, France, and Russia. What did the party of Brutus say after Caesar was slain? "Oh ..well ..we didn't think anyone would actually kill Caesar"?
Mod
This is an example of what we lawyers (retired in my case) call “assuming facts not in evidence.” It is an objection that lawyers make in court in analogous circumstances (I first heard the objection when I watched Perry Mason as a kid in the late 1950s and early 1960s). Although you admit that you don't know whether (or how) the teachers handled other issues of violence, you make assumptions about that question, while at the same time admitting you don't know. (This also appears to violate the principle of (non)contradiction).
In fact, this whole circus was caused by millions of people literally assuming facts not in evidence, i.e. the authoritarian Big Lie propagated by Trump and others that he "won" the election, that Biden "stole" the election, and that the Democrats committed "massive voter fraud." In sixty court cases, many of them before Republican and Trump-appointed judges, no judicially admissible evidence was proffered for any of this. Moreover, multiple recounts (including paper recounts) and audits in the swing states—often by Republican voting officials—proved that no such fraud had occurred. Leading Republicans, some of them in Congress, pointed out that the whole “stolen election” trope was a tissue of lies, and they warned of the kind of consequences that the world witnessed on January 6.
Left extremists did loot stores and did attack (or attempt to attack) some government buildings in Portland and elsewhere during the Black Lives Matter protests. The protesters themselves, from what I have read, were mostly peaceful, but the extremists moved in after dark and perpetrated these violent deeds. There is a fair amount of evidence (video and otherwise) that right-wing extremists were also involved in that violence. Similarly, the police have evidence of communications among the right-wing extremists prior to January 6, in which some of them planned to wear black clothing in order to make people think that the violence was caused by “Antifa” (whatever that is). Of the thousands of people who showed up that day, it is my understanding that the police found just one person who may have been associated with the left (perhaps he was in the process of going from one extreme to the other). Otherwise, the video and other evidence shows that the perpetrators were leaders and members of right-wing extremist groups.
As I and others have observed in the preceding posts, what happened on January 6 was different both in kind and in degree from the left violence that accompanied the Black Lives Matter protests. It’s the difference between an attempt to effect a coup d'etat or revolution and mere criminality. And it’s not over. These people have not given up.
Mod
Mod
Below is paragraph from the Snyder op-ed that Alan references in #433:"Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way."
If both"gamers" and "breakers," want to get rid of Trump, then they should convict him and bar him from running for office again.
Will they?
Hi Alan,I have a subscription to the New York Times, but I missed that one. Thanks for sharing it.
I have for a while been uncomfortable with calling Trump's ordinary supporters fascist, even if I believed such a plausible case could be made for Trump himself. (And of course, I am not counting right-wing paramilitary organizations which obviously are fascist. I was thinking more of how to describe his ordinary supporters.)
However, the article clarified why it is a fair description with a view to historical examples of fascism. I have yet to read Synder's books on the subject, or Jason Stanley's. The January 6 riot and its aftermath suggest these books are only getting more relevant in the coming years, even with Trump out of power.
To return to the theme of this room, I would like to highlight from the article that the threat to critical thinking and rationality in 1930s Germany was caused by new communication technologies, specifically the radio. Yet society adapted, and it is perhaps not too much to hope that, with respect to social media, we will too. The hope is that instead of needing to refute Trump's Big Lie, what will happen is that we will all forget it.
Hi AllenThe radio? I'd like to hear more about this. I'd gently assert that audio supports --in some small way --measured, contemplative thinking. At least I don't see how it erodes deliberation; unless misused. Any tool can be misused; but radio has a fine record of resisting mis-use.
Visual imagery (TV, internet) is arguably much more deeply insidious and lending of itself to brainwashing and social control.
I don't want to detour this thread, mind you.
p.s. It's come to my attention recently (although I just caught a passing glimpse of the announcement, I'm not sure whether its recent or last year) ...that the country of France has taken a great good step forward --they've gone so far as to ban cellphones in their national school system. To me, this attests to the growing concern over 'imagery' and a vindication of the 'spoken or (written) word'.
Mod
Feliks, here’s what Snyder said about the Nazi use of radio:
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
It's fascinating. And well within the scope of this thread (critical thinking, evidence, etc) I checked out the article (for some reason accessible to me, maybe I have not used up my monthly NYT quota?). Anyway yes I allow that great powers have tried to use spoken word media as a mind-control tool. But I would still reiterate that of all media, spoken-word is one of the least pliable --among the electronic family --to these purposes.
Naturally, American print journalism itself is still woozy and on-the-ropes these days. Very troubling. Some say it has already expired. And 'media mergers' (touched on in another thread) do not help.
Again: not to divert this thread. I realize it is only a sub-topic and of special-interest to a few.
A useful study of informal logic (“informal” to the virtual exclusion of “logic”) is Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter, by Scott Adams. Bob Woodward mentions this book in Rage, his recent book on Trump. Woodward says Jared Kushner told him this book is one of the things to read to understand Trump. Adams is the cartoonist who created Dilbert. He makes a point at the outset that he is to the left of most liberals. He has no use for Trump’s politics. That being said, Adams considers Trump a “master persuader.” The book appeared in 2017, which may explain why Adams tends to underestimate just how bad Trump turned out to be. Where Adams was accurate is that he says that on his blog he predicted Trump had a good chance of winning when most people gave him no chance. At the time, Nate Silver’s 538 gave Trump a 2% chance of winning.
I’ve been listening to a CD of the book that I borrowed from the library and checking some things in the book that I borrowed along with the CD. It is easy listening, sometimes amusing, and often informative. Adams develops a terminology for the persuasive techniques he identifies so the book is a kind of handbook on persuasion that has value as a reference book.
Since Cruz is in the news, I’ll sketch the way Adams analyzes Trump’s nickname for Cruz to give you an example of how he proceeds.
First, nicknames are good because they are a novel way of talking about a political opponent. Novelty attracts attention, but much more than mere novelty is needed for a nickname to work as well as Trump’s nicknames did. The nicknames that people came up with for Trump all failed to stick.
In the case of Cruz, it is “Lyin’ Ted” rather than “Lying Ted.” Why? Precisely because it prompts you to ask why “Lyin’” rather than “Lying.” Asking why and puzzling over it makes “Lyin’ Ted” stick in your mind more firmly. You repeat it, you remember it. (“Bigly” in the book’s title works the same way.)
Confirmation bias: A powerful persuasion is anything that confirms one’s bias. Setting up a confirmation bias framework is a good persuasive strategy. “Lyin’” sets up a bias. Voters assume politicians lie. You can be sure that Cruz will say something that voters will consider a lie, confirming this bias, adding to the persuasiveness of “Lyin’ Ted.”
Visualization is a powerful persuader. Any time you deploy visualization successfully, you will enhance the persuasion. In Cruz’s case, Cruz looks like a liar: “Ted Cruz has an unfortunate beady-eyed-liar look. If you were a movie director, you would cast him as the bad guy. He just doesn’t look honest” (132).
Mod
Thank you for the interesting info.
One thing that confuses me is Scott Adams’s politics. It is a fact that he eventually supported Trump in the 2016 election: see this Wikipedia article. I have always understood that Adams is right wing in politics. Perhaps, being a humorist, he is always playing with us regarding his political preferences.
Regarding Cruz looking like a liar, Mimi and I subscribe to the Stratford Festival (Ontario) series. We actually went there a couple of times a few years ago to see their plays in person. Needless to say, that’s no longer possible with the pandemic. So we subscribe to their productions instead. Last evening, we watched their 2019 production of Othello. The actor who played Iago looked and acted perfectly evil. The actor who played Othello and several of the other actors were also excellent. Unlike many other productions, the Stratford Festival didn’t try to modernize Shakespeare but rather reproduced his words exactly (apart from a possible gender change or two; I haven’t read the play for decades, so I’m not sure about that). However, they did modernize the clothing, which helped remind us about the play’s relevance to the present. In fact, Shakespeare’s themes in this play (written in about 1604 between Hamlet and King Lear) are astonishingly modern. It is quite clear that the great playwright was opposed to racism, misogyny, and domestic violence: he presented these evils in all their ultimate horror. To me, he is the greatest playwright of all time, especially in the wonderful language that points to truths beyond the immediate circumstances. Among these truths are his frequent references to the importance of reason, which is also a major theme of this play. Specifically, it was ultimately Othello’s failure to use reason and critical thinking that led to his great tragedy. Of course, Iago was the Devil Incarnate in leading the normally rational Othello to his own and others’ doom.
Alan, thanks for the reference. It indicates that Adams jumps around in his politics more than he indicates in this book. I haven't listened to all of it, so maybe he says more in later parts of the book.He does say that because of his praise on his blog for Trump's persuasive skills, he became a hero to Trump followers and an enemy to some of his liberal friends. So maybe he is trying to position himself to get invited to the parties he prefers.
Presenting information effectively is certainly a finely-tuned skill. One of the most basic tenets of communications, is that audiences don't retain much of what we hear. We have distracted brains; and we are visually-oriented. That's why there's been such a spurt in 'visual aids' for public speakers, lecturers, and in classrooms over the last generation. Edward R. Tufte and Richard Saul Wurman are two icons on the discipline.There is danger however, in the awesome power of visual messages to completely overwhelm critical thinking. Visual associations can outmaneuver rationality. Critical thinking depends on the verbal and logical side of our brains; and since the advent of modern media tools, we are perhaps fighting a losing battle.
Mod
Mod
This now is the second bumper sticker I would like to get: "I'm proud to be a logic bully." The first one, which I have pondered for many years, is "I'm proud to be an intellectual elitist." Of course, I would not put either bumper sticker on my car, because it would certainly result in the car being vandalized. Back in the day (circa 1978), when I was temporarily (only for about 30 years) impressed with Ayn Rand, I had a bumper sticker on my car that said: "Who is John Galt?" (see Rand's Atlas Shrugged for the answer). That car was stolen. However, the joke was on the thief. Due to the then new regulation that catalytic converters had to be installed on cars to reduce pollution, this car (a Plymouth Duster) stalled at virtually every red light. I took it back to the dealer many times, but they told me the same thing: they blamed the catalytic converter and said it was illegal to remove it. For some reason, the police never found this car, and I still have the title to it in my lockbox.
Mod
Mod
Re: msg #398Just this moment I happened to want to review a product I purchased on Amazon.com. The product failed; and I wanted to make this known to other consumers.
Instead I was told I wasn't good enough to earn the privilege of speaking out. I was directed to the new rules, here:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...
TinyURL:
https://tinyurl.com/zceyawg
Revolting. The shape of things to come. Since the internet is now 'our voice' (but steered at someone else's discretion), this could be how all dissent is 'managed' in future.
Mod
Just this moment I happened to want to review a product I purchased on Amazon.com. The product failed; and I wanted to make this known to other consumers.
Instead I was told I wasn't..."
What, specifically, was their gripe? What specific rule did they accuse you of not following?
That's what makes it even worse. They redirect everyone to this same bland, generic, 'explanation' page. You don't get any kind of personal rap sheet with your own specific demerits listed. Nothing you can fight or challenge. I don't know anything I've ever done which would invoke something like this.I feel like I've been ordered to sit on the bench with 'Group W'.
Mod
re: #392. John Wilkes Booth, was apparently a member of the "Know-Nothing" Party and lobbied for it in 1854 . There several other items of interest in the background of this dangerously unbalanced man. A specimen of his age, one might say; in that his head was full of so many conflicting ideas.
Mod
Mod
The view of science and medicine that students get from textbooks is that developments occur through the steady accumulation of knowledge, but this textbook view, as Thomas Kuhn, the great historian of scientific revolutions, has shown, tends to obscure the tensions and differences within science, by presenting it as a unified whole. Kuhn brilliantly details how science often proceeds in great bursts. He argues that a scientific theory and its related laws and practices make up what he calls a “paradigm.” No paradigm is perfect at describing the way the world is, and so, over time, some of the paradigm’s inadequacies become apparent, and then a scientific revolution occurs and the existing paradigm is replaced by a new paradigm. During the revolution, there is great tension between advocates of the old paradigm and the new one.SEPTEMBER 2, 2022 NOTE: See my post 515 (September 2, 2022) in this topic.
Kuhn shows that when a scientific revolution is occurring, books describing the new paradigm are often addressed to anyone who may be interested. They tend to be clearly written and jargon free, like Darwin’s Origin of Species. But once the revolution becomes mainstream, a new kind of scientist emerges. These scientists work on problems and puzzles within the new paradigm they inherit. They don’t generally write books but rather journal articles, and because they communicate largely with one another, a specialized jargon develops so that even colleagues in adjacent fields cannot easily understand them. Eventually the new paradigm becomes the new status quo. The everyday activities of the scientists who defend the new status quo make up what Kuhn calls “normal science.” Normal science assumes that the scientific community now, finally, “knows what the world is like,” [citing T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962; reprinted, enlarged Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 5] and the scientists “defend that assumption, if necessary at considerable cost. Normal science . . . often suppresses fundamental novelties, because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments.”
Lord of the Flies. Edward Bernays, father of public relationshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_...
Claude C. Hopkins, the father of scientific advertising
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_...
Mod
Mod
See posts 15, 16, and 18 here regarding teaching critical thinking skills in elementary and secondary schools.
Hi Alan,I enjoyed your review of Pinker's book.
The paragraph where you cite Hitler as an example of how one may live one's life according to rationality or irrationality -- but in either case, still being bereft of ethics --catches my interest.
I agree with the example but wonder about possible exceptions.
What about a figure such as Napoleon for instance? Like Hitler, an ambitious man who felt he was 'being called on' by his country. Or, that he had a special 'destiny'. He may have also felt he was being 'driven' to follow a certain course. He probably fancied he was 'acting for the good of others'. Should all of these notions be put down to egoism?
What about ..perhaps, the case of a young woman who dreams of raising a large family? Or a father who wants his son to follow in his footsteps? Lifelong ambitions and lifelong goals such as this can often rule people's lives. These aren't short-sighted, self-indulgent whims or reckless hobbies; (e.g., "I like to drive faster than the posted speed limit") these can be 'blinding' and 'overweening' passions.
According to ethics, people should rise above the force of any of these ambitions which carry them through life and assess them for their ethical outcomes. Is it fair to describe this way?
Political Philosophy and Ethics
Books mentioned in this topic
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Volume 4: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms (other topics)Mythical Thought (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms 3: The Phenomenology of Knowledge (other topics)
Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture (other topics)
The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Arthur Koestler (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
Edward R. Tufte (other topics)
Richard Saul Wurman (other topics)
