FEATURE ARTICLES. THE POLITICS OF PREJUDICE. PT 1.

If There is one thing we can Take from Recent National Political Campaigns, it is that PREJUDICE, IN ALL ITS FORMS, STILL SHOWS US WHY THE REAL STUMBLING BLOCK TO CAMPAIGN REFORM IS THE VOTER, NOT THE POLITICIAN.

It is still Amazing how Supporters of a Candidate, WILL STILL USE THE SAME TIRED EXCUSES TO JUSTIFY THEIR SUPPORT FOR A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR PARTY, EVEN WHEN IGNORANT OR IRRATIONAL COMMENTS ARE MADE PUBLIC.

For Example:

 "(HE OR SHE) IS JUST SAYING WHAT MOST PEOPLE THINK."

-  Really, and this ASSERTION IS ARRIVED AT BY....WHAT?

Maybe we should just take Their Word for it.

"(HE OR SHE) IS NOT SCARED TO TELL THE TRUTH.  OTHER

POLITICIANS ARE AFRAID TO."

-  So this Politician and Supporters are MIND READERS, and can

Ascribe MOTIVATIONS TO RIVALS who do not Voice Similar 

Opinions.

"THEY GIVE A VOICE TO THE DISENFRANCHISED VOTER, WHO

BELIEVE THEIR CONCERNS ARE BEING IGNORED."

Please Give me an Example of any Important and\or Divisive Issue

that does not have any Politicians or Pacs Championing One Side

or the Other, Deliberately Ignoring a Specific Segment of the Population.

END PT 1.

QUICK HITTERS. STATISTICS AND POLLS; PAY NO ATTENTION. PT 1.

Perhaps the two most misleading and least understood campaign tactics, used by candidates to win an election, are numbers reported through surveys, and conclusions drawn from statistical analysis of previous outcomes regarding certain subjects.

Both of these are easy to manipulate

as the following examples indicate;

WORD THE SURVEY QUESTION IN SUCH A WAY TO ENCOURAGE A CERTAIN RESPONSE;

Example- "Given the poor state of the economy, do you think Incumbent Candidate X can be trusted to fix the problem?"

See the real problems(s)?

#1-  The question does not in any way show justification for concluding that the economy is in "Poor" condition.

2) That there is a question of the "Trust Worthiness"  of Candidate X, yet there is no evidence given that there has been dishonesty in the past.

It is clear, that in cases such as this, that the wording of the question presumes a negative view of Candidate X.  Even answering the question could be construed as agreeing with its assertions.  LOOK FOR PT 2.

FEATURE ARTICLES. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO FOLLOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? PART 1.

As the Controversy Continues over GLOBAL WARMING, THE POLITICS OF THE SUBJECT ARE PUSHING ASIDE WHAT REALLY COUNTS, LEAVING US WITH THE FOLLOWING;

ARE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, LOGIC, AND CRITICAL THINKING COMING UNDER ATTACK BY THOSE PUSHING A POLITICAL AGENDA THAT IS ENTIRELY SELF- SERVING, AND CARES NOTHING ABOUT THE REALITY
OF THE SITUATION?

This Article is not going to Address the GLOBAL WARMING Controversy Itself, but will look at THE PROCESSES BEING USED TO ARRIVE AT THE DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS BEING OFFERED TO BEST EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER.  IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO FIND THE TRUTH ABOUT ANY NATURAL PHENOMENA, AND WHAT WILL LEAD US TO REAL ANSWERS INSTEAD OF BOGUS ASSERTIONS.

First, a Few Guidelines.

-  If one side spends most of its Time and Energy Attempting to Poke Holes in the Oppositions Theories, Evidence, and Conclusions, and Little on its Own Arguments that Support Their Position, IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITTLE TO OFFER.

-  Arguing Motivations is a Meaningless Waste of Time.  The SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS NOT A VALUE BASED WAY OF LOOKING AT THE NATURAL WORLD.  LIKE THE RULES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING,  THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD ACTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE REASONS BEHIND THE SEARCH FOR ANSWERS.

-  What is the Source of the Evidence, Testimony, and Opinions being offered? For Example, Are they Taken From Peer Reviewed Material that has been Heavily Examined and Scrutinized for any Procedural Mistakes?

FINALLY, WHAT TYPE OF EVIDENCE WOULD EITHER SIDE CONSIDER IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL ENOUGH THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR POSITION ON THE SUBJECT?

END PART 1.

Date-  3/25/2015.

LOGIC. IT'S NOT JUST FOR VULCANS, AND VIEWERS OF "THE BIG BANG THEORY." #5 PT 1.

There is one Logical Fallacy that seems to be prevalent in many activities and beliefs that are part of every day life for most people.  It could be Science, Religion, Politics, Economics etc.  It is used so often, that most of us would not recognize it.  Rarely, is the reasoning behind it questioned, for it might mean facing the truth in certain situations that could contradict established opinions.

Here is an example taken from Religion:  "If we can provide evidence that there was a great flood in the distant past, then the Christian Bible was relating a real event. Therefore, since it was proven right in this case, everything else contained within its pages must be accepted as true."

Now, an example taken from Science.

"In his book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Darwin introduces the concept of Natural Selection.  Through careful examination of the Fossil Record, Science accepts that this process is identifiable, verifiable and factual in nature.  Therefore, everything else contained in the book must also be true."

These are examples of the Logical Fallacy TRUTH BY ASSOCIATION.

Here is another example, taken from classic literature.

"The Trojan War, as described by Homer in THE ILIAD, was thought to be a fictional creation by the author.  However, archaeological excavations in Turkey indicate that such a city probably did exist, and there is evidence of destruction by fire. Therefore, If the Trojan War was a real event, then everything written by Homer describing it must be true.  This includes intervention by the Gods, and characters such as Achilles, Odysseus and Hector were real people that actually had the attributes described by Homer." 

End PT 1.