Historical examples exist where certain statements' meanings have been lost in translation, either by accident of perception or purposely to propagandize a situation.
An example of such lie in the Potsdam Declaration of1945; the Allies demanded the Japanese surrender, laying out several conditions which need be met for the surrender to be accepted; somewhere amongst quotations and translations, either Truman himself or the Emperor ended up interpreting such as meaning the "unconditional surrender" of the Japanese people. Needless to say, though Emperor Hirohito wanted peace, such a thought is tantamount to complete subjugation or slavery, and thus the Japanese replied with "mokusatsu", which is also ambiguous, having two meanings in the Japanese language--one meaning to scornfully condemn through contemptuous silence, another meaning to silently consider further. Needless to say, given that the Japanese were the aggressors and had recently stepped up their resistance in the Pacific Theatre, the Allies appropriately (arguably) did not give the Japanese the benefit of the doubt, and continued on with the eventual atomic bombing of Japan.
The point of this is to make clear how easy it is for misinterpretation to be rampant in the telephone game of language. People hear what is said, and based on their preferences in perception, decide the underlying meaning, often negatively misinterpreting statements in politics because they wish to spin topics to their advantage. An example of this lie in the recent issue between Clinton and Obama.
Obama's statement that Reagan was a political figure who was able to make his party one of ideas says nothing of Obama's opinion on the ideas themselves. Out of convenience, Clinton uses the sentiment against Obama, claiming Obama liked Reagan's ideas. There is a logical difference in the statement "ideas" and "good ideas"; one lacks a modification of quality, the other denotes approval. Obama never declared approving of said ideas, and thus it is unfair to claim such. This is a typical straw man fallacy, used to distort statements and beat up what was "supposively" said rather than the actual statement.
Furthermore, Clinton brought up that Obama apparently was for a single payer health care system. There is a logical difference between a conditional statement, such as "if we started from scratch, then single payer would be optimal", and simply declaring "single payer is optimal". One says "if p then q", the other just says "p". This is a suppression of evidence, where one chops off the hypothetical aspect of the statement in order to fit their goal of distorting their adversaries opinion.
Such tactics do a disservice to the public, who are easily motivated by biases to accept these spins as accurate; moreover, this is precisely the type of politicking Obama has railed against in his presidential campaign. It is quite alright to question his record and statements, but it is another thing to spin his record and statements into propaganda as the Clintons have done. As an individual who loathes such sociopathic maneuvering, it discourages me from supporting Hillary Clinton in any national election if she were to be nominated.
Beware of such fallacious distortions and ones possible biases to them (as seen in the historical distortions of the Potsdam Declaration) before accepting them as fact.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Your Weekly Dose of Logic: Golden Age? Part II
So, I've laid out an argument for the idea that technology will gradually bring people together in a more symbiotic manner over time, thereby reducing war and augmenting health, both emotionally and physically. Now I wish to address some of the basic rebuttals to Scott Adams' post to explain why the arguments are fallacious or irrelevant to the point:
I though to get to some kind of "Golden Age" we'd have to first go through some kind of ... revolution. i.e. the Rennaisance? I mean doesn't there have to be some kind of reform of our government and society BEFORE we can get to the Golden Age?
Fallacy Category: Complex Question Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance
The reason this is obfuscatory and fallacious is because of the fact that it is implying that reformation isn't occurring in the line of questioning...social reformation is perpetual--beit positive or negative, by high level of reformation as in democracy or in revolution as in monarchial systems--and as such, the point being made here is inaccurate. Every generation neurologically evolves based on experiential-dependent instruction, which implies no one person's situation is the same as the prior generation, more or less entirely interacting social bodies. History may appear to repeat itself macroscopically, but the reality is that evolution is an ongoing process, and given the human capacity to manipulate his environment, "anthroselection" is certainly entering a Golden Age because of technology.
There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I thought that the world was getting a little better. That finally, people started to learn to live together. That they started to understand that that is the only option to have a good life, without being killed or killing.
That was a time that I was optimistic and maybe not realistic. Then some planes flew into some buildings ...
Fallacy: Appeal to Fear, Red Herring?
Pretty prominent in politics today, this type of emotive appeal is very motivating because the reward pathways of the brain are emotionally driven by the amygdala and other limbic structures. Very primitive way of looking at things--the uniquely human features of the brain involve more calculated analysis, modulating emotions so as to not irrationally drive the brain due to prior trauma.
Most people simply don't understand that unless we quit producing more babies, all the technology in the world won't save us.
There will be no so-called "golden age" until this sinks in with the majority.
The time will come when we will long for the golden years of fighting over mere idealism and religion.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance with a Suppression of Evidence
This one is very bothersome because of the suppression of this point: it is not the case that the "production" of babies is somehow uncorrelated to technology; population explosion directly correlates to technological advances, as seen in the advent of agrarianism (and culture) 10,000 years ago. Population and interpersonal interaction itself drives technology via intellectual stimulation, as over 100 years of psychological evidence suggests. I am uncertain how overpopulation can even be qualified: if it is the case that population size and technology are congruous, then most certainly technology will "save us". See: the evolution of biomedicine in the 19th century if one disagrees.
A logic error at your arguments, Scott! Gotcha!
If economy at its present state is destroyed as technology developments you describe will surely render, maintaining trade links will not be that much important. And BTW, many wars of today are NOT fueled by economic reasons mainly but by cultural.
Fallacy: Straw Man Distortion
Economic exchange will be destroyed? I believe the reality is that economics will evolve to a point where more symbiotic exchange will become possible, NOT that reciprocal exchange will somehow die. This is an unqualified statement that defies millions of years of evolution. Technology has augmented and facilitated interpersonal exchange, evident in primate social systems such as orangutans (when socializing) and chimpanzees.
As one can see, naysayers often find intransigence in their arguments through being unwilling to argue logically.
Until next time, keep in mind that everything someone says or does really says something about themselves, such as fallacious reasoning founded in unhealthy emotional biases.
I though to get to some kind of "Golden Age" we'd have to first go through some kind of ... revolution. i.e. the Rennaisance? I mean doesn't there have to be some kind of reform of our government and society BEFORE we can get to the Golden Age?
Fallacy Category: Complex Question Fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance
The reason this is obfuscatory and fallacious is because of the fact that it is implying that reformation isn't occurring in the line of questioning...social reformation is perpetual--beit positive or negative, by high level of reformation as in democracy or in revolution as in monarchial systems--and as such, the point being made here is inaccurate. Every generation neurologically evolves based on experiential-dependent instruction, which implies no one person's situation is the same as the prior generation, more or less entirely interacting social bodies. History may appear to repeat itself macroscopically, but the reality is that evolution is an ongoing process, and given the human capacity to manipulate his environment, "anthroselection" is certainly entering a Golden Age because of technology.
There was a time, a couple of years ago, when I thought that the world was getting a little better. That finally, people started to learn to live together. That they started to understand that that is the only option to have a good life, without being killed or killing.
That was a time that I was optimistic and maybe not realistic. Then some planes flew into some buildings ...
Fallacy: Appeal to Fear, Red Herring?
Pretty prominent in politics today, this type of emotive appeal is very motivating because the reward pathways of the brain are emotionally driven by the amygdala and other limbic structures. Very primitive way of looking at things--the uniquely human features of the brain involve more calculated analysis, modulating emotions so as to not irrationally drive the brain due to prior trauma.
Most people simply don't understand that unless we quit producing more babies, all the technology in the world won't save us.
There will be no so-called "golden age" until this sinks in with the majority.
The time will come when we will long for the golden years of fighting over mere idealism and religion.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance with a Suppression of Evidence
This one is very bothersome because of the suppression of this point: it is not the case that the "production" of babies is somehow uncorrelated to technology; population explosion directly correlates to technological advances, as seen in the advent of agrarianism (and culture) 10,000 years ago. Population and interpersonal interaction itself drives technology via intellectual stimulation, as over 100 years of psychological evidence suggests. I am uncertain how overpopulation can even be qualified: if it is the case that population size and technology are congruous, then most certainly technology will "save us". See: the evolution of biomedicine in the 19th century if one disagrees.
A logic error at your arguments, Scott! Gotcha!
If economy at its present state is destroyed as technology developments you describe will surely render, maintaining trade links will not be that much important. And BTW, many wars of today are NOT fueled by economic reasons mainly but by cultural.
Fallacy: Straw Man Distortion
Economic exchange will be destroyed? I believe the reality is that economics will evolve to a point where more symbiotic exchange will become possible, NOT that reciprocal exchange will somehow die. This is an unqualified statement that defies millions of years of evolution. Technology has augmented and facilitated interpersonal exchange, evident in primate social systems such as orangutans (when socializing) and chimpanzees.
As one can see, naysayers often find intransigence in their arguments through being unwilling to argue logically.
Until next time, keep in mind that everything someone says or does really says something about themselves, such as fallacious reasoning founded in unhealthy emotional biases.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Your Weekly Dose of Logic: Golden Age? Part I
It's been quite a while since I blogged, but such is life in the dreary desolation we call winter. Anyway, down to business. The creator of Dilbert recently posted a very intuitive blog that I wish to add neuropsychological credence to.
You may find it here
It is absolutely true that energy and medical technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace; here's a few medical headliners courtesy of Science Daily and Medical News Today:
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created Without The Destruction Of Embryos
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created That Avoid Immune Rejection
Beating Heart Created In Laboratory: Method May Revolutionize How Organ Tissus Are Developed
Skin Cells Reprogrammed To Behave Like Embryonic Stem Cells
First Primate Embryonic Stem Cells Cloned By US Scientists
To expound upon the point of technology resulting in the reduction of war, one may look simply at the development of nuclear weapons and its effective relegation of war to diplomacy as seen in the Cold War; if one sees this as insufficient, then let us consider Neurobiologist Bruce Wexler's idea of internal-external consonance . This is a refinement of the idea of cognitive dissonance, explaining how people develop a sense of internal self from the external world, and once fully developed have a difficult time assimilating change, instead largely acting to manipulate the external world around them to become consonant with their internal viewpoints:
"It is the neurobiological imperative to maintain consistency between internal structures [of the brain] and the external environment that fuels the struggle to control the story...Neurobiological antagonism to difference, and the associated pressure to eliminate strange or foreign peoples with different ideologies...contributes to violent conflict...[However,] the angry consternation of the [society's] elders will not stop the youth of each culture from assuming characteristics from the others and then changing their cultures from within as they themselves assume leadership roles and act to make the external world consonant with their hybrid selves."
With that in mind, once one considers how technology brings together cultures that, although initially resisting change because it does not fit with their internal view of how the world should be, it becomes increasingly evident that one global culture will arise--one accepting of regional differences, that works synergistically toward a common goal of individual and global health.
This is a process, like evolution, that takes many years, but America is a microscopic example of what is happening globally. The general trend of our intracultural abuse has been negative (reducing), evidence being Women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. This is also the evolutionary process foreseen by Ernest Lawrence, Neils Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Edward Teller, scientists in the Manhattan Project, who used technology to reduce war to a diplomatic antagonism by relegating the security of the West and the USSR to a state of mutual dependency.
It was an excellent post, but of course the naysayers came out in full bore, projecting their psychopathology onto Scott Adams. So let's address some of the points stated in repudiation of the idea of a future Golden Age in my next post, shall we?
You may find it here
It is absolutely true that energy and medical technology is advancing at an unprecedented pace; here's a few medical headliners courtesy of Science Daily and Medical News Today:
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created Without The Destruction Of Embryos
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Created That Avoid Immune Rejection
Beating Heart Created In Laboratory: Method May Revolutionize How Organ Tissus Are Developed
Skin Cells Reprogrammed To Behave Like Embryonic Stem Cells
First Primate Embryonic Stem Cells Cloned By US Scientists
To expound upon the point of technology resulting in the reduction of war, one may look simply at the development of nuclear weapons and its effective relegation of war to diplomacy as seen in the Cold War; if one sees this as insufficient, then let us consider Neurobiologist Bruce Wexler's idea of internal-external consonance . This is a refinement of the idea of cognitive dissonance, explaining how people develop a sense of internal self from the external world, and once fully developed have a difficult time assimilating change, instead largely acting to manipulate the external world around them to become consonant with their internal viewpoints:
"It is the neurobiological imperative to maintain consistency between internal structures [of the brain] and the external environment that fuels the struggle to control the story...Neurobiological antagonism to difference, and the associated pressure to eliminate strange or foreign peoples with different ideologies...contributes to violent conflict...[However,] the angry consternation of the [society's] elders will not stop the youth of each culture from assuming characteristics from the others and then changing their cultures from within as they themselves assume leadership roles and act to make the external world consonant with their hybrid selves."
With that in mind, once one considers how technology brings together cultures that, although initially resisting change because it does not fit with their internal view of how the world should be, it becomes increasingly evident that one global culture will arise--one accepting of regional differences, that works synergistically toward a common goal of individual and global health.
This is a process, like evolution, that takes many years, but America is a microscopic example of what is happening globally. The general trend of our intracultural abuse has been negative (reducing), evidence being Women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. This is also the evolutionary process foreseen by Ernest Lawrence, Neils Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Edward Teller, scientists in the Manhattan Project, who used technology to reduce war to a diplomatic antagonism by relegating the security of the West and the USSR to a state of mutual dependency.
It was an excellent post, but of course the naysayers came out in full bore, projecting their psychopathology onto Scott Adams. So let's address some of the points stated in repudiation of the idea of a future Golden Age in my next post, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
