MORE LOGIC ARTICLES.

THE NEED TO EDUCATE, AND MAKE IT THE ENEMY OF IRRATIONAL, SELF-CENTERED, AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  PT 1.

I Know its Entertaining to Watch TV SHOWS that use Plot Devices that Make CERTAIN FICTIONAL CHARACTERS SEEM TO BE DEEP AND PROFOUND THINKERS, WHO ENJOY EXPOSING THE INTELLECTUAL WEAKNESSES OF OTHERS. THIS IS OFTEN DONE BY SHOWING HOW THEY ARE VIOLATING THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING.

While I Applaud any Effort to Introduce RATIONAL THINKING SKILLS TO ANY PART OF THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE, (EVEN ENTERTAINMENT), THE UNFORTUNATE TRUTH IS THAT IT IS NOT ALWAYS CARRIED OVER INTO REAL LIFE SITUATIONS.  THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE, WHEN WE EXAMINE ISSUES DEALING WITH POLITICS, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION.

Yes, These can be Extremely Volatile and Deeply Personal Subjects, and often Elicit Purely Emotional Responses to any perceived Criticism.  However, it is These Episodes that POINT FOR THE NEED TO INTRODUCE THE DISCIPLINE OF LOGIC, AS AN EDUCATIONAL NECESSITY, AT AN EARLY AGE.

When We Compare the Three, IT IS EASY TO SEE THAT THE RULES OF LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS, ARE NOT FOUND, DEVELOPED OR USED IN THE SAME WAY WHEN PEOPLE ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH.

That, in itself, is not NECESSARILY A PROBLEM, OR UNDESIRABLE. EACH EXISTS FOR SPECIFIC REASONS, AND WHAT SETS THEM APART IS THE FUNCTION OR NECESSITY EACH FILLS WITHIN THE LIVES OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL, AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.

However, Problems arise when Individuals and Groups decide to take the Beliefs and Essentials that are found in One, and Attempt to Apply them to one of the others. This is a Process that is Doomed to Failure, and does a DISSERVICE TO THE ROLE EACH PLAYS IN SOCIETY.

Date-  1/3/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

THE NEED TO EDUCATE, AND MAKE IT THE ENEMY OF IRRATIONAL, SELF-CENTERED, AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  PT 2.

When we Discuss Educating Young People on the Practical Uses of LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING IN EVERYDAY LIFE, THE POLITICAL SYSTEMIS AN AREA OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE.  

ENCOMPASSING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW, THE ECONOMY, AND OTHER PARTS OF DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY, ELECTING AND SUPPORTING THE MOST COMPETENT, HONEST, AND CAPABLE INDIVIDUALS IS A GOAL THAT EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD FEEL IS A RESPONSIBILITY, ONE THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

In a free and open open society, POLITICIANS CAN GIVE AN OPINION ON JUST ABOUT ANY SUBJECT, USUALLY WITH LITTLE FEAR OF PUNISHMENT. However, that does not mean they know what they are Talking About, or even care, as long as there are Those who are willing to close Their Minds, and Accept What is being said at Face Value.

THIS IS MANIFESTED BY THE POLITICIAN WHO IS ADEPT AT DELIVERING A SPEECH THAT CAN LAST FOR HOWEVER LONG THEY NEED IT TO, USING WORDS AND PHRASES THAT MAY SOUND INTELLECTUAL AND INSIGHTFUL, BUT LACK ANY REAL SUBSTANCE OR MEANING.  THE BODY OF THE SPEECH IS JUST EMPTY RHETORIC, SPOKEN BY SOMEONE WHO KNOWS OR CARES LITTLE FOR THE FACTS, OR ADDRESSING REAL ISSUES WITH KNOWLEDGE AND COMPETENCE.

SO HOW CAN WE INSTRUCT YOUNG LOGICIANS IN IDENTIFYING THOSE POLITICIANS WHO TALK A LOT, BUT SAY LITTLE THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED OF ANY VALUE?

IT IS TO TEACH THEM THAT NOT ALL POLITICAL SPEECH IS OF EQUAL WORTH, AND HOW TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VALUABLE AND VALUELESS.  TO DO THIS, WE SHOULD POINT OUT THERE ARE TWO MAIN FORMS OF POLITICAL SPEECH THAT ARE USED TO SWAY VOTERS, BUT USE DECEPTION, PREJUDICE, AND A SELF-CENTERED MINDSET TO IGNORE AND AVOID PROVIDING REAL ANSWERS THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL AMERICANS.

THEY ARE...

-  ...THE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION/BASELESS ASSERTION.

                               AND

-  ...THE VAGUE/UNDEFINED MESSAGE.

LOOK FOR PART 3.

LOGIC.

THE NEED TO EDUCATE, AND MAKE IT THE ENEMY OF IRRATIONAL, SELF-CENTERED, AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  PT 3.

THE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION/BASELESS ASSERTION.

ANY STATEMENT, PHRASE,OR DECLARATION THAT IMPLIES

AN ETHICAL\MORAL, LEGAL, SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC JUDGMENT

THAT HAS NO  PROPER FOUNDATION THAT CAN WITHSTAND 

COMPREHENSIVE RATIONAL OR CRITICAL ANALYSIS.

LET US LOOK AT A FEW EXAMPLES:

"THE ECONOMY IS IN TROUBLE, WE NEED TO GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION."

"WE ARE WEAK AS A NATION, OUR FOREIGN POLICY DOESN'T SCARE 

OUR ENEMIES."

"IF WE HAVE GUN CONTROL, ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE THEM."

AS YOU SEE WITH THE ABOVE EXAMPLES, THEY ARE SIMPLISTIC PHRASES THAT USUALLY LACK;

-  SPECIFIC STATISTICS, AND/OR COMPARISONS WITH PAST DATA.

-  CONTEXT, OR JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR USAGE IN SOME INSTANCES,

   AND NOT IN OTHERS.

-  AN EXPLANATION FOR THE USAGE OF INFLAMMATORY WORDS THAT CAN BE DEFINED AND USED SO AMBIGUOUSLY THAT THEY HAVE NO INTELLECTUAL VALUE, AND DO NOTHING TO EXPLAIN OR DEFINE ANY OPINION OR POINT OF FACT THAT THE SPEAKER IS TRYING TO MAKE. 

 WORDS SUCH AS- "WEAK", "SCARE", "TROUBLE", "WELFARE", 

 "CONTROL"  "DANGER", "ENEMY", "VICTIM", AND ON AND ON...   

IF YOU ARE A POLITICIAN WITH NO REAL CONCEPTION, OR DESIRE, TO DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE ELECTORATE AS A WHOLE, YOU TURN TO TIME WORN PHRASES LIKE THESE. SO WHY DO THEY WORK?

WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT REMEMBER THE SALESMANS

MAXIM:  

 "IT'S NOT THE DEAL THE CUSTOMERS IS GETTING THAT IS IMPORTANT, IT IS THE DEAL THEY THINK THEY ARE GETTING."

JUST SUBSTITUTE "CANDIDATE" FOR "DEAL", AND "VOTER" FOR
"CUSTOMER."

HMMMM... THE TRUE SECRET TO GETTING ELECTED?

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

THE NEED TO EDUCATE, AND MAKE IT THE ENEMY OF IRRATIONAL, SELF-CENTERED, AND PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT.  PT 4.

 ...THE VAGUE/UNDEFINED MESSAGE.

Is a Foundation for many BASELESS, UNPROVEN, IRRATIONAL,

DECEPTIVE AND ULTIMATELY DESTRUCTIVE LINES OF THOUGHT. 

THE FACT IT IS STILL USED SO EFFECTIVELY SAYS A GREAT ABOUT THE 

LACK OF EDUCATION IN THE DISCIPLINE OF LOGIC, THAT STILL UNDERMINES THE INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS THAT 

SOCIETY NEEDS FOR ITS MEMBERS TO MAKE TRULY INFORMED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISIONS ABOUT HOW BEST TO IMPROVE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.

HERE ARE A FEW EXAMPLES:

"WE MUST BE A NATION THAT STANDS UP TO OUR ENEMIES."

"RESTRICTING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS WILL DESTROY THIS COUNTRY."

"FREE SPEECH MUST NEVER BE DENIED TO ANYONE, OR WE WILL

FIND OURSELVES LIVING UNDER A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT."

Do some of These Sound Familiar?  Look at Them Carefully, what can you Conclude, or Even Reasonably Infer from anything Contained within the Words? 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

UNLIKE THE:

THE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION/BASELESS ASSERTION.

(WHERE CATEGORIES LIKE THE ECONOMY, FOREIGN POLICY, THE 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM etc, ARE REFERENCED, OFTEN INACCURATELY 
AND WITH NO SPECIFIC INFORMATION...

THE VAGUE/UNDEFINED MESSAGE.
THERE ARE NO PARTICULAR AREAS OF GOVERNMENT, SOCIETY, OR 

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM THAT ARE MENTIONED AT ALL.

THERE IS NO REFERENCE, IN ANY WAY, TO A SPECIFIC CATEGORY OR AREA THAT MIGHT AID OTHERS IN RESEARCHING FOR ANY FACTUAL DATA THAT WOULD SUPPORT SUCH GENERIC STATEMENTS.

THE SECRET OF THE SUCCESS FOUND WHEN POLITICIANS USE THE 

THE VAGUE/UNDEFINED MESSAGE, IS THAT THE LACK OF CONTEXT 

LEAVES OPEN POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS THAT ARE ONLY RESTRICTED 

BY THE LEVEL OF IMAGINATION, PARANOIA,OR PERSONAL PREJUDICES

THAT EXIST INSIDE THE MIND OF THE LISTENER.

Date-  3/14/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, 

EVERYONE SUFFERS. #1

If there is One Thing we can learn from SENATE REPUBLICANS REFUSING TO HONOR THEIR OATH OF OFFICE, IN HOLDING HEARINGS TO DEBATE PRESIDENT OBAMAS NOMINATION FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, IS THAT THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING IS PERVASIVE, EVEN AMONG THIS COUNTRIES LEADERS.

How so?  Read the following STATEMENT VERY CAREFULLY, AND YOU WILL 

SEE THE PROBLEM. (I believe this release by U.S. SENATOR JERRY MORAN, 

SUMS UP THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES STAND ON THIS ISSUE ACCURATELY.)

Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Morans Statement, given by an aide, on why he changed his mind on holding the Hearings:

(4/1/2016.)

"He has examined Judge Garland's record and didn't need hearings to conclude that the nominee's judicial philosophy, disregard for Second Amendment rights and sympathy for federal government bureaucracy make Garland unacceptable to serve on the Supreme Court ... Senator Moran remains committed to preventing this president from putting another justice on the highest court in the land."

Put aside the Hyperbole that lies within the Statement, and you may notice that the SENATOR IS ACTUALLY TAKING A POSITION ON TWO DIFFERENT, AND SEPARATE ISSUES.

"He has examined Judge Garland's record and didn't need hearings to conclude that the nominee's judicial philosophy..."

This is Clearly a Judgment made by the Senator that any HEARINGS WILL NOT CHANGE HIS POSITION.

FINE, BUT NO ONE IS SAYING THAT THEY COULD, SHOULD, OR WOULD. HIS SUPPORT, OR LACK OF, IS NOT DEPENDENT ON WHAT OCCURS DURING THE HEARINGS. HE IS FREE TO IGNORE, OR DISREGARD ANYTHING SAID, OR TESTIFIED TO, AND MAKE HIS JUDGMENT ON HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE CANDIDATE.

THIS GOES FOR ANY EXCUSE BEING USED TO OPPOSE THE HEARINGS.

Such as:

"Most Senate Republicans say a nomination...should be made by the next President."

Very Well. Even though this Opinion is not backed up by any RULING OR PRECEDENT BASED IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY SENATOR FROM MAKING A DECISION ON THAT BASIS.

IT COMES DOWN TO THIS:

-  HOLDING THE SENATORIAL HEARINGS REGARDING JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION,

AND

-  APPROVING THE NOMINATION, 

ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND TRYING TO PLACE THEM TOGETHER IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF DISTORTING THE TRUTH TO HIDE THE REAL REASON FOR THE OPPOSITION TO THE HEARINGS...

Date-  4/6/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, 

EVERYONE SUFFERS. #2.

If we want to find the Most Probable Reasons for the REPUBLICAN PARTIES refusal to hold Hearings for JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT, WE MUST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.  By doing

this, IT WILL NOT MATTER WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE, FOR WE WILL BE ABLE TO JUDGE THE VERACITY, AND CREDIBILITY OF THE ANSWERS GIVEN.

Here is What we know to be True.

1)  The SUPREME COURT CURRENTLY HAS ONLY 8 MEMBERS. THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE HIS DUTY ACCORDING TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, AND NOMINATED A CANDIDATE.

2)  The REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED SENATE HAS REFUSED TO HOLD HEARINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW QUESTIONING OF JUDGE GARLAND,

REGARDING HIS CAPACITY TO FULFILL THE INTELLECTUAL AND MENTAL

REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPOINTMENT. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE, AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THAT

HE HAS, OR DOESN'T HAVE, THE REQUIRED TRAITS. 

(This Refusal is Contrary to any Reasonable Interpretation of the Wording Contained within the Constitution, and may force the President and other Members of the Senate to seek a Solution to overcome this Obstructionist Tactic. I have covered this part of the controversy in other posts, so I refer you to Them for more information.)

3)  There has never been a single case in U.S. History of the Senate not holding Hearings to question, and consider a Supreme Court Nominee. So, setting aside the Constitutional Question of failing to fulfill Their Oath, why are SENATE REPUBLICANS DOING THIS?

Let us consider the Answer that has been used from the Beginning:

THAT JUDGE GARLAND DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH SUPPORT TO PASS A  

NOMINATION VOTE.

Whether that is True or Not, means nothing if it is not a vote Taken within the 

BODY OF THE SENATE ITSELF.  Officially, answers given to the News Media

have no value.

However, let us Take This Conclusion of Lack of Support as True, and see what we have:

-  IF THIS IS SO, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LOSES NOTHING BY HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND HAVING AN OFFICIAL VOTE. THE OUTCOME WOULD REMAIN THE SAME, BUT NOW THE ACCUSATION OF FAILING TO UPHOLD THEIR OATH TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WOULD DISAPPEAR.

-  FURTHER, THE SENATE, AND ALL OF ITS MEMBERS, WOULD BE ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND REASONS FOR NOT APPROVING JUDGE GARLAND. THIS WOULD AID THE PRESIDENT IN NOMINATING A MORE APPROPRIATE CANDIDATE.

-  IN THE END, IT WOULD ALLOW THE OPPOSITION AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION JUDGE GARLAND. THEY WOULD LISTEN TO, AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS FROM HIS ANSWERS, WHICH THEY COULD USE TO VALIDATE THEIR REJECTION OF HIS NOMINATION.

These seem to be perfectly reasonable, and I cannot see any possible objections,

if JUDGE GARLANDS LACK OF SUPPORT IS THE ANSWER FOR NOT HOLDING THE HEARINGS.

HOWEVER, WHAT IF THAT IS NOT THE CASE...?

Date-  4/24/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

WHEN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE REASON, 

EVERYONE SUFFERS. #3.

So, What Could Be The True Purpose behind the Republican Parties Leadership not wanting to hold FORMAL SENATE HEARINGS ON JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FOR THE OPEN SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUIDELINES THAT OUTLINE THE PROCESS TO FILL THE VACANCY?

-  They want the Next President to Address the Situation, BY PERSONALLY SELECTING THE NEXT NOMINEE.

There is no where in the BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT EVEN HINTS THAT SUCH A DECISION IS VALID AND LEGAL. In Addition, NO LEGAL PRECEDENT, SET BY JUDICIAL REVIEW, CAN BE CITED TO SUPPORT THIS ACTION.

Even if this is THE TRUE EXPLANATION, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND VOTING DOWN THE NOMINATION, WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.

-  There is a Lack of Support in the SENATE, WHICH MEANS DENYING JUDGE GARLAND THE OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE COURT.

AGAIN, HOLDING THE HEARINGS, AND REQUIRING A VOTE, WOULD END WITH THE SAME RESULT: JUDGE GARLANDS NOMINATION FAILING TO GET APPROVAL.

However, what happens if the HEARINGS ARE HELD, AND A VOTE TAKEN, THAT DOES NOT OCCUR IF THE NOMINATION IS KILLED BY A REFUSAL TO FOLLOW PROPER CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEDURES?

-  AN OPEN FORUM TO ASK JUDGE GARLAND QUESTIONS REGARDING HIS 

CAPABILITIES, ATTITUDES, AND BACKGROUND THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON HIS FITNESS IN FILLING THE VACANCY.  THIS WOULD REVEAL, TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE TYPE OF PERSON JUDGE GARLAND IS, AND WHAT HE REPRESENTS, MORALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY. 

-  THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE WHO APPROVE OF JUDGE GARLAND, TO QUESTION AND PROBE THE REASONS GIVEN BY THOSE WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION. THIS WOULD REVEAL TO CONSTITUENTS THE REASONING BEHIND DENYING JUDGE GARLAND A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT.

-  FINALLY, A VOTE, ON THE RECORD, THAT EACH SENATOR WOULD HAVE TO CAST, WITHOUT HIDING BEHIND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND OBSTRUCTIONIST TACTICS.

HOWEVER, THE REAL REASON MAY BE AN ATTEMPT TO SUBVERT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS.

LOOK FOR THE NEXT POST.

Date-  5/6/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

SEEKING THE TRUTH.  HOW ABOUT REALLY LISTENING? #1.

When Situations like these Arise, how would you Process the 

Information Given?

Example #1.

You are sitting at home, and the Phone Rings.

Answering it, you hear the voice of a long time friend, and

he says:

"You remember that Jerk I use to work with, "B--", when I was

with XYZ Company?  Well, I ran into him at the Club last night.

Long Story Short, I knocked him on his ..."

Suddenly, the Phone goes Dead. You Guess that your friend was

on a Cell Phone, and that it was now out of power, or in a Location with 

Bad Reception. Given what you have been told, has your friend Acted:

-  Appropriately, and is Morally Justified for the Act of Violence Committed.

-  Has acted Inappropriately, but given the History of Your Friends Relationship

with "B--," the Act of Violence was Understandable. This should Mitigate any

Punishments that would result from this Act of Violence.

-  Irresponsibly, and should be held Legally and Morally Responsible for any

and all Consequences. Such Behavior is in no way Justifiable, either Morally

or Legally.

...Or...?

Let us Turn to Example #2.

NEWS CONFERENCE, FOR A CANDIDATE RUNNING FOR

NATIONAL OFFICE.

Reporter- "You are Hoping to Unseat an Incumbent, who has been

in office for over a Decade.  What do you Offer as Favorable Alternative,

to the Current Officeholder."

Candidate-  "I'm glad you asked.  I represent the future of Politics, Elected

Officials who will listen to the Will of the Voters.  We Need a Change of 

Direction, going back to the TRADITIONS THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY 

GREAT."

After Listening to this, what do we now know about the Candidate, that 

could help the Voter make an Informed Decision on Election Day?

Finally, Example #3.

You are Watching T.V., and while Turning the Channel, you come Across

the Following:

Spokesperson- "Yes, I know it's Hard to Believe, but Taking Just Two Pills,

Twice a Day, will result in an Almost Immediate Improvement in your Condition.

It is a Treatment Doctors and Big Pharma don't want you to Try, because They

don't make any Money off of it.  The are Trying to Discredit It's Effectiveness, so 

you will continue to take Their Prescriptions."

How much of what you have just Heard Sounds Truthful, and Why?

To be continued...

Date- 6/5/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

THE FALLACY OF ANSWERING THE UNASKED QUESTION. #1.

This could be considered a form of the FALLACY OF MISDIRECTION, BUT IS OFTEN USED TO ATTACK THOSE WHO EXPOSE, OR REVEAL THE WEAKNESSES THAT ARE PRESENT IN THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS BEING INTERVIEWED, QUESTIONED, OR DEBATED.

To illustrate this particular FALLACY, let us create an example from Politics:

"Mr. Candidate, your Opponent says that the Economic Policies that are part of 

your Campaign Platform will lead to Increased Taxation on the Middle Class, while 

allowing increased Tax Breaks for the Wealthiest 2%. Further, that your opposition to an increase in the Minimum Wage will drive even more Families into Poverty, Due to Recent Changes in the Consumer Price Index. How do you Respond?"

Answer- "It is Well Known that my Opponents Economic Policies are Anti- Business, and will lead to Many Corporations Seeking to move Operations to other 

Countries. It is this Attitude, that has made Corporate America Very Hesitant to back his Candidacy. We must find more ways to encourage the Private Sector to Invest More Capitol into New and Expanding Technologies."

How about this one from the World of Finance.

"You claim that your Business Model will create great profits for all Investors, but your Critics say that the Bottom Line Depends upon Recruiting New Individuals to Sign Up, so that Their Membership will inject New Money into a Fund to pay off the Older Investors. Is this so?"

Answer-  "When I first started my Company, attracting Initial Investors was Tough, because very few believed in my vision. However, for the Few who were Far-Sighted enough, an Investment of a Few Thousand Dollars has paid off more than Ten Fold. Don't Talk to my Critics, listen to Those who were here on the ground floor."

You can see the following:

While the Question is Direct, and asks for Specific Information,

the Answer Often:

-  HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS ASKED.

-  IS MEANINGLESS, BECAUSE IT IGNORES THE SUBJECT

MATTER CONTAINED IN THE QUESTION. 

-  IS VAGUE, AND BASICALLY AN OPINION THAT RELIES ON 

SUBJECTIVE ASSERTIONS THAT AVOID ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS.

-  APPEALS TO THE IRRATIONAL AND SELF- SERVING MEMBERS

OF THE AUDIENCE, WHO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT TRUTH, OR 

ACCURACY, BUT ARE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR

SUPPORT FOR THE PERSON ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

*I HAVE SPECIFICALLY AVOIDED WRITING ABOUT THE HORRIFIC

TRAGEDY THAT IS THE ORLANDO NIGHT CLUB SHOOTINGS, SO

ANY INFORMATION I RELAYED TO MY READERS IS ACCURATE, AND

NOT A KNEE JERK REACTION BASED ON FAULTY INFORMATION.

HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A CHANCE TO SEE HOW PUBLIC FIGURES

ANSWER THE TOUGH QUESTIONS, TO SEE IF THEIR ANSWERS

AND OPINIONS ARE LOGICALLY VALID, AND NOT BASED ON

FALLACIOUS REASONING.

Date- 6/13/2016.

Scroll down for future posts.

LOGIC.

SEEKING THE TRUTH.  HOW ABOUT REALLY LISTENING? #2.

When Situations like these Arise, how would you Process the 

Information Given?

 Let's look at Example #1.

You are sitting at home, and the Phone Rings.

Answering it, you hear the voice of a long time friend, and

he says:

"You remember that Jerk I use to work with, "B--", when I was

with XYZ Company?  Well, I ran into him at the Club last night.

Long Story Short, I knocked him on his ..."

Suddenly, the Phone goes Dead. You Guess that your friend was

on a Cell Phone, and that it was now out of power, or in a Location with 

Bad Reception. Given what you have been told, has your friend Acted:

-  Appropriately, and is Morally Justified for the Act of Violence Committed.

-  Has acted Inappropriately, but given the History of Your Friends Relationship

with "B--," the Act of Violence was Understandable. This should Mitigate any

Punishments that would result from this Act of Violence.

-  Irresponsibly, and should be held Legally and Morally Responsible for any

and all Consequences. Such Behavior is in no way Justifiable, either Morally

or Legally.

...Or...?

Given this Situation, what should a Rational Person Conclude? Can you accept what you have been Told as Truthful?  How should you proceed?

As so Often happens, the Key to Evaluating any Action, Decision, or Judgment that you are presented with, lies in your ability to step outside the Situation Itself, and View it as a Dispassionate Observer.  If you were Listening to this Conversation, and had no Interest in the Outcome, (Personally), you might WONDER ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:

-  It seems that the Friend has some Type of ANTAGONISTIC HISTORY with the second individual, but is it LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM? Was it a Conflict that was JUST BETWEEN CO-WORKERS, THAT STAYED ON THE JOB SITE, OR DID IT CROSSOVER INTO THEIR PERSONAL LIVES?

-  When you go Through the Brief Description of the INCIDENT given over the Phone BY THE FRIEND, DID YOU NOTICE; That while there was some Type of Physical Altercation, the Friend did not RELATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT FIRST led to the Confrontation, and who was RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING THE CONTACT.

-  Since the Incident Occurred at a "CLUB," Which usually indicates a business that serves Alcoholic Beverages, how much Influence did possible "Inebriation," or "Diminished Capacity," Play in Causing the Confrontation.?

The Point of the Above Critique, is that Truly Rational and Reasonable Individuals are not going to make IMMEDIATE VALUE JUDGMENTS BASED ON THE WORD OR TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, (NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE), WITHOUT SEEKING OUT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS AND CAUSES THAT COULD BRING THEM CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.

The PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S A INTELLECTUAL/MENTAL PROCESS THAT IS OFTEN DISREGARDED, WITH PEOPLE REACTING, AND JUDGING THE VALUE AND RELIABILITY OF THE INFORMATION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE:

-  SOURCE.

-  CIRCUMSTANCES.

-  BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON 

   RELAYING THE INFORMATION.

-  LACK OF PERSPECTIVE, OR 

   OBJECTIVITY, THAT IS PART

   OF THEIR OWN PERSONALITY.

-  THE POSSIBLE MOTIVES OTHERS 

   MIGHT HAVE TO "FALSIFY" OR "OBSCURE"

   THE TRUTH.

While we often see this Type of Situation in our Criminal Justice System, it is also

played out on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL, WITH POTENTIAL VOTERS IGNORING POSSIBLE CREDIBILITY LAPSES, IN WRITTEN OR SPOKEN FORM, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION REINFORCES PRECONCEIVED VALUE JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE SPEAKER/WRITER, OR THE SUBJECT MATTER.

THESE LAPSES MAY NOT BE JUST THE PRODUCT OF THE CANDIDATE, BUT CAMPAIGN WORKERS, SPOKESPEOPLE, AND EVEN THE NEWS MEDIA

CAN ALSO PROMOTE DUBIOUS "FACTUAL DATA."