LOGIC. HOW CAN YOU SPOT A WELL REASONED ARGUMENT, OR AN IRRATIONAL ONE? PT 1.

It may be a Local Politician, Co-Worker, Friend, or even a Family Member. Yet, it is Inevitable that occasionally someone you know will Voice an Opinion about an Issue that will be in Direct Conflict with your own.  What should you do? What is at Stake if you Decide to Open up and be Honest?  Before you Decide, try to go through the Following Process, and see what Answer it leads you to. 

1.  Is the Subject Matter of Such Importance that it must be Addressed Immediately?-  What is Important to You, Friends and Family, may not really matter to others.  Pick your Battles.  If You have an Opinion on a Subject, but it lies in conflict with Others, is the Disagreement so Vast that you are willing to make a Stand Then and There?  Can it wait for a Different Time and Place?  What Do You Gain, or Lose, by Postponing such a Discussion?

2.  Many Times it is Better to say NOTHING AT ALL, LET THE SPEAKER MAKE THE CASE FOR YOUR SIDE OF AN ISSUE.-  Are you Familiar with the Saying:   

                 "BETTER TO BE THOUGHT A FOOL, THAN TO OPEN YOUR 

                  MOUTH AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT."   

How Many Times have you been present at a Gathering or Event, where Someone Attending is making a Fool of Themselves, Blurting out Meaningless Drivel that has everyone Rolling Their Eyes and Walking Away.  If it is within a group of Fairly Well- Informed People, They will see the Individual for what He Is;  Ill-Informed, Ignorant, and Lacking the Basic Skills for Intellectual Discourse.  No Opinion They Offer will be Taken Seriously, and Hopefully, it is on the Opposite Side of an Issue that you land on.

3.  The Most Important Disagreements to Confront Immediately are Deliberate Falsehoods and Bad Information-  Before you can point out an IRRATIONAL AND INVALID ARGUMENT, MAKE SURE THE SPEAKER CAN BACK UP ANY FACTS AND FIGURES THEY ARE STATING AS FACT.  Don't point out the Flaws in the REASONING AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR ARGUMENT, AND IGNORE ANY MISINFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PREMISES.  THEY CAN JUST REFORMULATE THE ARGUMENT TO MAKE IT VALID, BUT IT MAY STILL CONTAIN THE SAME FACTUAL FLAWS.

HERE IS A BASIC EXAMPLE;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A  VICIOUS DOG.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

This is an INVALID ARGUMENT.  SPOT MAY 

BE A VICIOUS DOG, BUT ANY BREED OF DOG 

CAN BECOME VICIOUS, IT IS NOT A BEHAVIOR 

EXCLUSIVE TO THE ROTTWEILER.

TO MAKE IT A VALID ARGUMENT, IT IS CHANGED

TO THIS;

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS DOGS.

SPOT IS A ROTTWEILER.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

THEREFORE, SPOT IS A VICIOUS DOG.

NOW THE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY VALID.

HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF TRUTH FOR THE CONCLUSION

THAT SPOT IS VICIOUS, LIES IN THE PREMISE THAT 

ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE VICIOUS. THAT IS A FACTUAL

CLAIM THAT MUST BE BACKED UP WITH PROPER

DATA.

NORTH AMERICAN KANT SOCIETY: Amendments to NAKS constitution.

Dear David McDonald, I hope that this finds you well and safe at this difficult time. I write today to circulate to all members the second round of proposed amendments to the NAKS constitution: Proposed Amendments to NAKS constitution May 2020.pdf Amendments are marked in track changes. They have been approved by the NAKS Board and are now subject to consideration by the membership. Because we are unable to meet in person to discuss this matter, I will be convening a Zoom meeting, probably on June 3, for discussion. I will send an invitation, including specific information about the time of the meeting, soon. For those unable to attend the meeting, or who prefer the option of more extended/written discussion, there is also the option of posting on a new blog page on our website, made for this purpose (by Noam Hoffer, our great tech consultant!):  Constitution Changes Subsequently to these discussions, the vote will be held via email. Please do not hesitate to contact me (by reply to this email) if you have questions. With best regards, Rachel Zuckert The "North American Kant Society" is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization. 2809 Kenyon Circle, Boulder, CO 80305. http://northamericankantsociety.onefireplace.org/

IN SEARCH OF THE TRUTH: SCIENCE vs PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Sometimes you may be watching a Program Dealing with a Controversial Topic, and Hear Words or Phrases that sound PROFOUND OR INSIGHTFUL. 

Their Use Could Be an attempt to Make the Speaker sound Knowledgeable and Authoritative. If you pay attention to what is being said, you will often find an Individual Speaking about a Topic, Who has a Fundamental Lack of Understanding about the the SCIENTIFIC METHOD OR PROPER RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. 

(SUCH AS POLITICIANS ATTEMPTING TO USE TERMINOLOGY THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND TO ADDRESS AND SOLVE PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES LIKE THE CORONAVIRUS.)

I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH: JUST BECAUSE A PUBLIC FIGURE USES A TERM OR PHRASE, DOES NOT MEAN THEY UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT MATTER.

Perhaps the most numerous examples of such cases of faulty reasoning skills can be found by TUNING INTO ONE OF THE CABLE TELEVISION SHOWS THAT ATTEMPTS TO LEGITIMIZE PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND ONE OF THEIR MANY SUBJECTS OR TOPICS. ( i.e. UFOS, ANCIENT ASTRONAUTS, GHOSTS, CRYPTIDS etc.)

I'll be Describing a Few from Time to Time.  See if you can spot Them the Next Time Your Channel Surfing.

"SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN HOW THIS WAS DONE."-  Is an Often Used Phrase that seems to Indicate that the Discipline of Science is Stumped by some INCREDIBLE FIND OR DISCOVERY, SO THE PSEUDOSCIENCE BEING PUSHED ON THE SHOW PROVIDES THE REAL ANSWERS.

Intellectual Discipline does not allow Science to make Uninformed or Unwarranted Conclusions, or Offer Opinions and Speculations that Lack any Basis in Reality. The SCIENTIFIC METHOD does not Mean offering Any and All Possible Solutions, AND MAINTAINING THAT THEY ARE ALL EQUALLY VALID.

The Tools of Proper Scientific Study, Together with the Rules of Logic and Critical Thinking; SYSTEMATICALLY GATHERS EVIDENCE THROUGH PROPER AND SET METHODS TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, OBSERVATIONAL ERROR, AND CONFORMATION BIAS. THIS ALLOWS FOR PROPER EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION, RESULTING IN CONCLUSIONS AND HYPOTHESES THAT CAN STAND UP TO SCRUTINY.

The Phrase; "WE MUST GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE TAKES US", IS ENTIRELY TRUE.  HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T MEAN IGNORING DATA AND HYPOTHESES THAT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED FROM OBSERVATION AND TESTING, IN FAVOR OF SPECULATIVE IDEAS THAT HAVE NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE THAT CAN WITHSTAND EVEN THE MOST CURSORY EVALUATION.

This Leaves us the Most Telling Difference BETWEEN REAL SCIENCE VS PSEUDOSCIENCE;  REAL SCIENTIFIC STUDY PROPERLY GATHERS, STUDIES AND INTERPRETS ALL AVAILABLE DATA TO FORM CONCLUSIONS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND, OR HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT ALL REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES.

PSEUDOSCIENCE STARTS WITH A CONCLUSION, (THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD), AND TRIES TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  THIS IS USUALLY DONE:

-  BY MISHANDLING OR MISIDENTIFYING AVAILABLE DATA.

-  ASSERTING FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE.

-  IGNORING RELATIVE DATA.

-  FAILING TO UNDERSTAND, OR LACKING KNOWLEDGE OF

NATURAL LAW.

-  INCORRECT REPORTING OF SPECIFIC EVENTS, EITHER BY 

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR INSUFFICIENT RESEARCH.

... AMONG OTHER THINGS.

Look for Specific Examples in Future Posts.

AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION: Elections reminder: Voting closes next Thursday.

Dear DAVID, Voting is currently underway to elect new Eastern Division officers and a new member at large of the APA board of officers, as well as to consider an amendment to the association bylaws. Voting closes Thursday, May 21. Thank you for voting! All the best, Amy E. Ferrer Executive Director

The American Philosophical Association University of Delaware 31 Amstel Avenue, Newark, DE 19716