Former U.S. vice president Al Gore urges us all to reduce our carbon footprint, yet he regularly flies in a private jet. Former drug czar William Bennett extols the importance of temperance but is reported to be a habitual gambler. Pastor Ted Haggard preached the virtues of “the clean life” until allegations of methamphetamine use and a taste for male prostitutes arose. Eliot Spitzer prosecuted prostitution rings as attorney general in New York State, but he was later found to be a regular client of one such ring.
These notorious accusations against public figures all involve hypocrisy, in which an individual fails to live according to the precepts he or she seeks to impose on others. Charges of hypocrisy are common in debates because they are highly effective: we feel compelled to reject the views of hypocrites. But although we see hypocrisy as a vice and a symptom of incompetence or insincerity, we should be exceedingly careful about letting our emotions color our judgments of substantive issues.
Allegations of hypocrisy are treacherous because they can function as argumentative diversions, drawing our attention away from the task of assessing the strength of a position and toward the character of the position’s advocate. Such accusations trigger emotional reflexes that dominate more rational thought patterns. And it is precisely in the difficult and important cases such as climate change that our reflexes are most often inadequate.
Thus, listeners should temper such knee-jerk reactions toward the messenger and instead independently consider the validity of the message itself. It also pays to examine closely what the duplicitous deeds really mean: from some vantage points, such behavior may actually support a hypocrite’s point of view, significantly softening the hypocrisy charge in those cases.
Undermining Authority
One surprising truth about hypocrisy is its irrelevance: the fact that someone is a hypocrite does not mean that his or her position on an issue is false. Environmentalists who litter do not by doing so disprove the claims of environmentalism. Politicians who publicly oppose illegal immigration but privately employ illegal immigrants do not thereby prove that contesting illegal immigration is wrong. Even if every animal-rights activist is exposed as a covert meat eater, it still might be wrong to eat meat.
More generally, just because a person does not have the fortitude to live up to his or her own standards does not mean that such standards are not laudable and worth trying to meet. It therefore seems that charges of hypocrisy prove nothing about a topic. Why, then, are they so potent?
The answer is that such allegations summon emotional, and often unconscious, reactions to the argument that undermine it. Such indictments usually serve as attacks on the authority of their targets. Once the clout of an advocate is weakened, the stage is set for dismissal of the proponent’s position. Consider the following two examples:
Dad: You shouldn’t smoke, son. It’s bad for your health, and it’s addictive.
Son: But, Dad! You smoke a pack a day!
Amy: Have you seen Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? We need to reduce our carbon footprint right away.
Jim: Al Gore? You know he leaves a huge footprint with all his private jet flights!
In the first example, the son feels that his father is not an appropriate source of information on smoking because Dad is a hypocrite. The accusation of hypocrisy does not so much defeat Dad’s position as nullify it, almost as if Dad had never spoken. The same holds in the case of Gore’s airplane, although the speaker, Amy, is not the alleged hypocrite but rather Gore, the authority to which she appeals. In both cases, hypocrisy is proffered as evidence of the insincerity or incompetence of a source, providing ammunition for ignoring his or her advice or instruction.
See what we're tweeting about
213 Comments
Add CommentInteresting the Al Gore example you fail to mention the logical fallacy of the first speaker for using an Appeal to Authority to state her case rather than factual evidence. In this example the hypocrisy charge actually makes sense. If the only rational given for "reducing our carbon footprint" is Al Gore wants us to then calling his character into question makes sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To his credit, Gore compensates for his plane trips by buying carbon offsets, which pay for projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love how liberals, such as the author, make excuses for hypocritical rich, elitist liberals. So, throwing some money to "green" causes buys you dispensation to live a life of excess and pollution on a scale higher than that of a dozen typical families.
Why shouldn't we ask the rich libs, who tell us to sacrifice for the Global climate, to live by the same rules they want to impose on we peons? Why is it all right for them to pollute as much as they want, as long as they plant some trees?
Hypocricy doesn't make something true or false. But it shouldn't be excused or ignored. If someone, like Gore, believes the world is in great danger due to man-made Global Warming, then shouldn't he be willing to make the exact same sacrifices that he's telling us to make? Maybe his lack of urgency to reduce his own carbon footprint is due to the threat not being as great as he tells people? Or, maybe he just thinks that ordinary people should have to sacrifice but he shouldn't have to?
Either way it doesn't make people as willing to sacrifice in their own lives if rich liberal elistists like the Gores, Kerrys, Clintons, Kennedys, most of Hollywood, etc., are preaching to us while continuing to live big and wasteful lives.
The concept of hypocrisy is the colliding of those who attempt to live in a world of black and white, with those who understand that the world is grey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's fun pointing out hypocrisy, until you discover that anyone who lives and breathes is a hypocrite.
What is with all this liberal elitist talk? If you think the wealthiest people in america whose values revolve around money and being a self-proclaimed moral majority, aren't elitist, you're in for a rude awakening. And hollywood? So far, I'm counting Arnold S, Jesse Ventura, and Ronnie Reagan... as the hollywood hotshots who took office. All Republicans. But you've never been to hollywood, have you? It's not electric cars and movie stars like some evil liberal utopia like your party has you believing. Stop watching so much tv, good god...
Here is an Italian saying to summarise the points: "bisogna fare quello che dice il prete, non quello che fa", which translates: do what the priest says, not what he does!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article to be, hypocritical. The Al Gore apologetics especially. Its tantamount to giving NAMBLA a pass,,, for supporting orphanages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts unadulterated Double-Think.
In the Public realm, such exposures always present a legitimate concern. Though we should be, we aren't actually voting for an 'issue' or sending money to a cause, we are giving power to those 'Characters' who claim that they WILL represent OUR interests ON those issues. If they turn out to be feckless, then we can have no confidence that our interests are going to be upheld, and they should NOT be extended the Trust.
'Virtue is neither hereditary nor perpetual' Thomas Paine
Its precisely why are suppossed to have regular Elections and the benefit of a Free Market, neither of which can operate as intended, with undetected subterfuge.
Sadly, and a notable trend in the last century, this article highlights an endemic problom and downward spiral in our political system, and very much with BOTH Parties. Its a zero-sum-gain in either direction. Every 'good' comes with an 'ill' that negates it, The Left and Right 'clay feet' of the same beast. Step by step, together, they lead where We the People do not actually want to go.
So, according to the authors, If the smoking father in the example story were to buy "smoking offsets"it would then be okay for him to tell his son to not smoke? That would cure him of his hypocrisy? That's convenient.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember History, in the Middle-Ages, when "Indulgences" were being sold/provided to the High-Born and the rich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the environment, and I would love to be able to drink clean water from a stream, breathe clean air and eat clean food, or even walk all day without seeing a beer can.
Hypocrisy indeed. Before I, being neither Aristocracy of filthy rich, suffer under the burdens of laws, taxes, denials of my own prerogatives and feel the oppression of the green-shirts peeking in my garbage & my window,,,
I would like to see the last yacht being turned into a reef, the last vacation home & five-star resort turned into a homeless shelter, the last private jet turned into an ambulance, the last Country Club turned into wilderness or food/fuel production, the last multi-million dollar corner office converted to a cubicle.
I'd like to once see the trickle-down hypocrisy followed when and where it DOESNT benefit those who already enjoy the greatest benefits.
Accusations of hypocrisy are worse than useless. They are invariably ways of blowing off a position without having a substantive reason to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorse than that, they are, well, hypocritical. We like Han Solo and Indiana Jones precisely because they espouse a cynical value system but always do the right thing in the end. We don't get angry when people profess low ideals and behave better. We only trot out the accusations of hypocrisy when people profess an ideal and don't live up to it. Every accusation of hypocrisy is an implicit endorsement of the value being professed, but not carried out.
Interesting that in this article on hypocrisy, the subject of integrity never creeps in. While I cannot disagree with the final intent of the author, to ignore personal integrity from individuals spouting "Inconvenient Truths", who then behave in ways contrary to their own causes, is a primary source of the doubt cast by the associated statements/actions. In the end, we are what we do, not just what we say. This appears to be the why behind the emotions that are involved when one feels they are being duped by the hypocrit who is speaking. Hence, the message is lost to emotion. Unfortunately, the natural human response to hypocrisy is, in fact, to then ignore the person, and his subject. Why, otherwise, would the Al Gore example continue to be flogged by the media. If one truly believes in their own message, they need to act in ways far more important than spoken words can measure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn these situations, which is the baby, and which the bathwater?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the "issues" are the baby, then throwing out the characters that dont measure up should not present a problem.
If the "characters" are the baby, then the issues themselves are secondary if not superflous, and the issue-based support itself becomes hypocritical.
For those who believe in Gore's message, perhaps they should shun him and make it clear that if he can't live by his words and do as he is telling us to do, then he will be ignored and they will find someone worthy to represent them. There must be somone out there who has the standing and the wealth, yet choses to live a simple life, free from the excess that Gore and other high profile liberals indulge in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, EB, I totally agree! It is so much like the Indulgences that were sold by the church long ago, letting people "sin" as much as they wanted, as long as they paid for it. If someone who has total financial security can't manage to live with a minimal carbon footprint, how do they expect people who just barely get by to make sacrifices?
This article supports something I've said for a long time: Hypocrites are annoying because they're usually right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRogeregon's and EB's comments illustrate a central tenet of the article, that accusations of hypocrisy derail logical thought. Both of them use ad hominem arguments to "refute" the need to do something about global warming. I notice they didn't try to defend smoking, which is essentially a nonpolitical issue--they just used this forum as an opportunity to attack people rather than their ideas.
I may be a hypocrite, but at least I'm not a hypocrite.
This article supports something I've said for a long time: Hypocrites are annoying because they're usually right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRogeregon's and EB's comments illustrate a central tenet of the article, that accusations of hypocrisy derail logical thought. Both of them use ad hominem arguments to "refute" the need to do something about global warming. I notice they didn't try to defend smoking, which is essentially a nonpolitical issue--they just used this forum as an opportunity to attack people rather than their ideas.
I may be a hypocrite, but at least I'm not a hypocrite.
Sorry. I didn't see that a new page of comments was added after I submitted my reply. It looked like my reply was lost after I logged in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I was pointing out was how liberals love telling other people how to live while not following those same rules. It's like the people in Congress who pass laws for the rest of us to follow but make themselves exempt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Al Gore says that to save the planet we all must give up our cars and pressures all of us to do so, yet he continues to use private jets and his own vehicles, isn't it reasonable for us to question why we should make such a huge sacrifice when someone like Gore who is pushing the idea doesn't?
It's not a question of what's right or wrong, but how much ordinary people should have to sacrifice when the people pushing those ideas aren't doing so themselves.
I have two comments to make.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, a father who smokes but tells his son not to smoke is hardly a hypocrite. A hypocrite hides his vice. The father, on the other hand, uses his habit as a warning when he tells his son “don’t make the same stupid mistake I made when I started to smoke; now I am hooked”.
Secondly, the author’s case that focusing on the messenger’s hypocrisy sets the stage for dismissing the message is rather weak. How many people will disregard Al Gore’s warnings about global warming, just because he himself adds disproportionately to the problem? How many people will dismiss moral precepts just because a pastor named Ted Haggard was caught with his pants down?
We resent these hypocrites because they appoint themselves to tell the rest of us what to do. That doesn’t mean that we follow their example. Who is going to go out and rent a hooker just because prosecutor Eliot Spitzer did?
Adam-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did I (or anyone else so far) "refute the need to do anything,,,"?
To the contrary, I believe I stated my wish for a cleaner environment, and yes, I try to do my part there. I haven't advocated smoking to anyone, though I am a smoker since age 12 who doesnt want my two boys to get hooked. I am non-denominational with a personal Faith in God, that rejects most aspects of 'organized religion', I think what Haggarty did was beyond reprehensible, and he has proven himself unfit to be a figurehead for the cause that brought him fame, and there are a great many more known & unknown that are similarly unworthy.
Now, was your ad hominem an example of?
EB--
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of discussing the way hypocrisy distracts from the real point, you launched into a criticism of Gore for--that's right--hypocrisy.
You said: "I found the article to be, hypocritical. The Al Gore apologetics especially." It's as if (exactly as if) you completely missed the point of the article.
Rogeregon went off on a tirade against liberals excusing--once again--hypocrisy.
Accusations of hypocrisy are nothing more than ad hominem fallacies. As long as someone is railing against liberalism, they're dodging the arguments liberals make.
And this is exactly what the article is about. I find it ironic (a kind of hypocrisy, in a way) that you can't even recognize that very behavior in yourself.
By the way, it did take note of the Author's blatant hypocricy and bias, arguing for the seperation of character from issue, then arguing the opposite for Gore, yet pointing to Haggerty as an example where the entire concept of religion shoud be weighed and measured by his example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I tried to get across earlier, its sad when in so many circumstances, we are left to vote or not vote for this or that person, rather than directly for or against any given issue. That is the only way we CAN express our wants and wishes for the subject, instead of it being clouded by or risked in the hands of a duplicitous 'champion'.
I love science, I always have. Regrettably here as in many other publications (and classrooms) the whole thing has become a asymetrical battleground for ideological turf-warfare and propaganda such as the Yellow Journalism the author exhibits.
I appreciate this article and agree with it on an intellectual level. What is missing is the understanding of the power of modeling. That is, a teacher/ mentor behaving in ways that are visual and the results seen to a learner is an extremely powerful teaching method. This is because actions we see stick are retained more easily than things we hear or read (ex. learning how to walk by seeing adults walk, versus trying to verbally explain to someone how to walk without the learner ever being able to see anyone walk).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a negative emotional reaction to hypocrisy because we all know the pain in being let down by those whose behaviors do not match their actions (this is the definition of integrity).
Adam-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not.
I despise Bush for his hypocrisy (and ineptitude, etc) every but as much as I do Gore, and Clinton before him, and so on and so on. I don't confine myself to pointing out the fallicies of 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' or any other -ism. I don't duckspeak, I just happened to run with the examples given in this particular article, this time.
(Ron Paul '08 !!!)
Al Gore has a role as a spokesman for a cause. He wants a global reduction in greenhouse gases. Reduction does not mean immediate stop or does it mean a similar rate of reduction among all sectors and among all people. Some will emit more than others: some industries are necessarily carbon heavy, while others can more easily convert to green energy. He is crusading first for a reduction where reductions are feasible and easy (such as switching to light hybrid or electric cars and energy efficient lights).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA monster truck rally and an environmentalist gathering may well have the same carbon footprint; however, the former does not change attitudes nor resulting behaviours that will bring about the change of reducing carbon emissions (considering some of the popularity gains in green technology is due to a concern for the environment and not just simply self-interest, ex., cheaper fuel mileage). When looking at the cost/benefit balance the monster truck rally is a gratuitous use of carbon compared to the latter and will probably not lead to any emission reductions. Gore's carbon footprint is ostensibly not of the gratuitous type: it is in service of reining global emissions through a change in global awareness. Already many are conversant with such terms are "carbon footprint". It is not hypocritical when one understands the complexities of the issue. It is merely ironic that carbon will have to be used to quickly change the attitudes of the public to become more in line with sustainability.
Jefferson had to use slaves to compete in his local economy and keep the stature he needed to deliver his message - one of which was abolition. Yet time has favoured the message over the hypocrisy. No doubt history will perceive Gore in the same context.
No,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong before 'Inconvenient Truth' was published, long before Gore became a poster-child for the global warming issue, before there WAS a 'global warming issue', he was an acolyte of Agenda 21, Smartgrowth and a host of other traitorous schemes for One World Government, designed, supported and pursued by the top echelon of the uber-rich and uber-powerful. The very epitome of Elitism.
He simply picked up the 'global warming' issue and ran with it because it was a ready vehicle for a much, much broader plan
"Gore's carbon footprint is ostensibly not of the gratuitous type: it is in service of reining global emissions through a change in global awareness."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is false!!! Living in a giant mansion, where even with energy efficient light bulbs, he uses more electricity than a few average families not using the energy efficient light bulbs, his using big SUVs while telling others to use small hybrids, etc., and a number of other examples of his being a rich man living an excessive life style, following few of the rules he wants to impose on us, while planting some trees to make up for his excess!
HYPOCRISY!
I agree with EB. It's not a matter of whether Global Warming is a threat, etc., but that a host of super rich liberals use it, along with other issues, to reduce the average Americans into sheep blindly following their elitist masters.
If I had a pastor who turned out to blatantly live a lifestyle that contradicted what he preached I'd go to a new church- it wouldn't make me question God or the Bible. I'd realize that the blame fully lay with the pastor who was being a hypocrite and I would stop listening to him, just as these liberal sheep should stop listening to and supporting Gore. That's not to say that shunning Gore means they have to stop believing whatever they believe. Just that they shouldn't allow some jerk to prosper from his hypocrisy!
This article does a wordy job at saying "don't kill the messenger; listen to the message". What this article abysmally lacks in defense is the FACT that people are in in prison, are fined, are scrutinized, and often labled for life by the very tough laws that the hypocrites espouse. When the hypocrites get off with a slap on the hand, it merely reminds us, the regular Joe's of the country, that those in power get a slap on the wrist whilst we the people get the books thrown at our head. This article is short-sighted and hides obvious discrepancies between those in power and those who pay their salaries with their taxes. In short, this article is short sighted and covers its discrepancies with verbosity. Shame, shame you hypocritical author.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is not clear at all what you see as hypocritical about the article, EB. You disagree with us about whether all issues are to be settled by the actions of their representatives, but there's nothing yet that shows that Talisse or I have done something inconsistent with what we've proposed here. If you want to make accusations of hypocrisy, please have actual proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRelatedly, it seems you are all too caught up in weighing the importance of Gore's hypocrisy instead of actually responding to what the article demonstrates: namely, that some cases of hypocrisy can strengthen a speaker's case. Unless you can show that there is something about Gore's actions (either the carbon footprint or the offsets) that undermine his case that there is anthropogenic global warming and that we should take steps to stop it, you are precisely part of the problem our article criticizes.
shaivayogi, there are two quick clarificaitons needed here. First, the central claims of the essay were considerably more developed than one should refrain from killing the messenger. The discussions of the Gore and smoker cases were to show that sometimes speaker hypocrisy can be indirectly relevant to the speaker's case. This is a relatively overlooked point in discussions of hypocrisy and what are sometimes called TU QUOQUE fallacies. As a consequence, more than a simple homily was necessary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, you are right that many people suffer from wrongs often eventuated by some hypocrites. But as you even recognize earlier in your posting, the fact that they are hypocrites does not make the things they do wrong, but the quality of their message. As a consequence, the fact that people are miserable because of bad laws or oppressive tactics is awful, but it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. So even by your own lights, shame on you, shaivayogi, for clouding the water.
Hypocrisy does not negate standards, hypocrisy abuses power. The abuse of power is what stirs objection.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. The comments validate this article 100%. EB is off on a tangent about the New World Order or the Illuminati or something (it's hard to tell), and most of the others are sidetracked with their opinions on global warming. Scott Aiken and a couple of others, thankfully, have refrained from taking the bait of the trolls who lack the reading comprehension skills necessary to make cogent comments. I hope the author is watching this and preparing a follow-up article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see you are in defense mode. I never once disputed the mounting evidence of climate change.
If, your position would support that, by way of hyperbole, if a pedophile tells people not to become pedophiles, we should heed the obvious advice, then I wouldn't disgree. If, on the other hand you are suggesting that we should consider appointing a pedophile to represent us in the fight against pedophilia, then let that Stultifara Navis sail on without me.
Gore was a bona fide hypocrite with the Public's Trust the day he held up his hand and said 'I do solemnly Swear...' considering his support and pursuit of agendas that were antithetical to his Oath.
It is in light of what I know of the Occidental Silver Spoon that I question, and am wary of, everything he proposes, and the direction he would have us head off in. Thats not to say he doesn't use truth to bolster his arguments, there are very few con men DON'T do that. Its not simply the hypocritical lifestyle he is able to purchase. There is more to the issue and the reality of Gore towards it than the simple elements you focused on, and that makes your example and the treatment of it, disingenuous and misleading, leaving the impression that he and those like him should be given special permission to transgress their own edicts.
Gore represents an Elitist dogma that our Betters always know best, and those with power and wealth ARE and will always be, our Betters. An ubermensch mentality where the Rulers are not constrained by the same conditions, pains and penalties, or the same moral prerogatives, as those they Rule.
I would love to help protect the Earth and make it a better place, for myself and my fellow Man, for posterity. However, I would not simply make that a world that CAN be lived in, but a world and a society WORTH living in, for the Common People. I have no interest in contributing to any dead-end Elitist dystopia. Not one where the slaves wear fetters of silver and gold, not one where our descendents munch on soylent green, or one where they get strung up for poaching the King's deer, or stretching out on the King's grass.
I want a clean and sustainable world, very much so, with no Ministries of Truth, Love, Peace and Plenty, no Phillip Dru's, to dictate the lives of Free People. Gore doesnt lead us towards a world I would like to live in.
I fail to see how the preachers message should be questioned because of a moral failure but someone else's shouldn't? If the preacher also ran a home for saving prostitutes from the street would this make his message more or less true??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdam-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott Aiken IS one of the authors,,,
And, gee, go figure that when an article ostensibly about Hypocrisy uses a player in the New World Order as an example, and ends up engaging in apologetics for him, in support of his platform, a comes off more like a fluff piece than journalism (much less hard Science),,, lo-and-behold someone would bring up the "New World Order",,,, and point to the greater hypocrisy that is Al Gore and the wider issues at stake.
The article expresses a belief that everyone should overlook some hypocrisy on the part of whomever the authors happen to believe in.
I say hypocricy, especially in the Public sphere and with the Public Trust, should NEVER be overlooked, or tolerated. Look at what happened to the saps that voted for Bush on the abortion issue, they got aborted. On Social Security reform, they got nada. Bill Clinton on universal health care,,, nothing. Its not that the issues are unimportant to those who vote for them, its that when a hypocrite gets entrusted to DO something, they drop the ball,,, because they ARE a bloody hypocrite.
The homage that vice pays to virtue
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiskottke's earlier comment is a dead-on observation, and one we did not address in the article (but is worth a good bit of discussion). kottke's point is that once someone becomes a speaker in favor of a policy, one's actions are also instructive as to how to follow that policy -- one becomes an example. You might call the credibility one gets from being a good example "moral authority," and that authority can be damaged not only by missteps in one's actions but also *percieved* missteps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne further thought about hypocrisy in this vein is that how well people live up to their own advice is evidence as to the practicabiliy of that advice, so someone may have very good advice, but it may demand too much of us... and so an advocate's failures can be evidence that the advice is unrealistic.
You can either talk the talk or walk the walk. If you are just telling people what you think the facts are, fine. But if you are asking people to change their behavior, and/or sacrifice for a cause, then you had better be willing to do it yourself. That does not include throwing money at an issue if you are a rich person...that is not a sacrifice. Talk or walk applies to everyone, liberal to libertarian.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI usually really enjoy the SciAm RSS feeds but I think you guys missed the point about hypocrisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMHO, hypocrisy only really comes into play in a debate about opinion or values, such as the example you gave about religionists caught with prostitutes; they are clearly hypocritical for condemning others for doing the same thing they've been caught doing, and that undermines their "moral authority", whatever that really means.
On the other hand, the example where Al Gore flies around in a jet exhorting us to reduce our carbon footprint doesn't really qualify as hypocrisy, because reducing our carbon footprint is a good idea even if you don't believe CO2 emissions cause global warming. Likewise, for the dad who smokes telling his son not to smoke, not smoking is a good idea whether or not the idea comes from a non-smoker.
For me to not take the advice (to not smoke) of a smoker would be very much the same as not believing a grade-school drop-out telling me that 1+1=2.
AnotherGoddamnedAtheist writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting the Al Gore example you fail to mention the logical fallacy of the first speaker for using an Appeal to Authority to state her case rather than factual evidence. In this example the hypocrisy charge actually makes sense. If the only rational given for "reducing our carbon footprint" is Al Gore wants us to then calling his character into question makes sense.
Response: You do not know what the fallacy of appealing to authority is. It surely is not a fallacy to appeal to someone who actually is an authority!
CaveCanem writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, according to the authors, If the smoking father in the example story were to buy "smoking offsets"it would then be okay for him to tell his son to not smoke? That would cure him of his hypocrisy? That's convenient.
Response: Nope. Try reading the article.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article expresses a belief that everyone should overlook some hypocrisy on the part of whomever the authors happen to believe in.
Response: Nonsense. Try reading the article.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll concede that, in part.
My poor choice of the term 'expresses' which you did not explicitly do.
I should have taken the time to take it it to task for the way it 'implies' that sentiment, and the further implication being that the author's hold some bias in favor of that which they treat favorably. With the further implication that they hold a bias against what they treat unfavorably.
Some bad actors on the religious side, and even some 'bad religion' provide no more justification to challenge the entire precept of Religion, than some bad scientists and 'junk science' serve to discredit all of Science.
Its a false dichotomy to seperate the two on many issues, global warming being one example. Moral decisions are and will have to be made when dealing with a human population and human needs. To be purely amoral and coldly 'scientific' about it would make simply eliminating 90% of the human population and controlling it at that level as valid a proposal to reduce/reverse the effects of human-driven climate change. Same would go for food shortages or water shortages, overcrowding, disease control, genetic purity,,,,,, etc etc etc. Slippery slopes ahead.
I could appreciate the approach the writer took for this article when the pros and cons of hypocrisy were outlined. The views of hypocrisy inadvertently coincide with the teachings of Christianity. As Christian followers/believers we "all" aspire to live according to Christ Jesus and God's commandments but often fall short in our daily lives. We often preach the gospel and spread the words of the bible as doctrine for emulating Christ as our example. Truth be told there are not many Pastors, Priests, Nuns, etc. that are capable of living such a high standard because as humans we are all fallible. Fortunately under Christianity all of our human failures are forgiven through repentance. It's unfortunate this lesson cannot be applied in real life when hypocrisy rears its ugly head.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisclgarvin-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. And, there is a deep and abiding Wisdom for a Civilization to set an ethical/moral Standard that few can attain or maintain. It levels the playing field in many aspects.
That is what allows even the most humble and down-trodden to call even the mightiest to task for their shortcomings, the Commoner to gainsay the King.
Without it, we are reduced to little more than beasts, at any given moment subject to the whims and urges of whatever Alpha happens to weild the dominion of the hilltop.
-EB
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery well said. I could not agree with your sentiments more.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should have taken the time to take it it to task for the way it 'implies' that sentiment, and the further implication being that the author's hold some bias in favor of that which they treat favorably. With the further implication that they hold a bias against what they treat unfavorably.
Response: More nonsense. There's nothing in the article that constitutes or implies bias of any sort. The thesis of the article is simple: Sometimes, hypocrisy counts as evidence in favor of the hypocrite's position (and sometimes not). Discerning whether it does requires one to assess the merits of the position, independently of the lack-of-merit of the hypocrite espousing it. Your posts thus far have missed the point altogether.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou write;
"The thesis of the article is simple: Sometimes, hypocrisy counts as evidence in favor of the hypocrite's position (and sometimes not). Discerning whether it does requires one to assess the merits of the position, independently of the lack-of-merit of the hypocrite espousing it."
I hardly missed that sentiment, and left that simply I do not disagree. It is not what I took issue with.
The message rides upon its own merits, not those of the messenger. It has always been so.
Where we appear to disagree is the application. I think people like Al Gore, who live like Al Gore, need to be stopped. The evidence of climate change supports that.
What I am not prepared to do is fall for some ridiculous proposal about everyone who uses carbon being forced to pay an offset or some other type of penalty for it. Its a Tax, and a very unfair one at that. One that either the richest either do not feel or can escape, as in pass it along to others, and the poorest cannot afford or escape. Gore & others choose to live as extravagantly as they do because they can afford it. Only a fool would argue that they 'have to'. Some man or woman that has to get to work and is already limited in what they can provide doesnt have those easy options.
Its as utterly stupid and offensive as Hillary's let-them-eat-cake approach to health care, being simply to force everyone to buy coverage. (Might as well stump to end world hunger by proposing to just make everyone buy food.) Such people & positions are not only hypocritical, they belie a disconnect between themselves and the plight of the Common Man, one they are all-too-happy to maintain. As fleshed out by there being no proposal from them that everyone else to rewarded as much for an hour of labour as they do. They aren't only unworthy to Represent US, they are intrinsically incapable of it.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[The thesis of the article] is not what I took issue with [....] Where we appear to disagree is the application. I think people like Al Gore, who live like Al Gore, need to be stopped. The evidence of climate change supports that.
Response: Ah... I see. You're "taking issue with" a position nowhere advanced in the article, and your "comments" posted here are simply expressions of some of your thoughts, which happen to be only very loosely related to the article. My mistake was in thinking that you were trying to respond to things Aikin and I actually said. Carry on.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI took your article, in one respect, as advancing the postiion that Al Gore's hypocrisy should be over-looked, or at least torture it into a context where his hypocrisy actually gives 'him' some credibility as the type of REPRESENTATIVE, that we should be able to entrust the issue to, his own issue.
That IS the [over-all] impression I got from it. (and I whole-heartedly disagree)
You are free to affirm or disavow that.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI took your article, in one respect, as advancing the postiion that Al Gore's hypocrisy should be over-looked, or at least torture it into a context where his hypocrisy actually gives 'him' some credibility as the type of REPRESENTATIVE, that we should be able to entrust the issue to, his own issue.
Response: There's nothing in the article that advances this position.
EB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd ask you to re-read the concluding paragraph of the essay-- that the relevance of a speaker's hypocrisy depends on the content and truth of her claims. So with smoker dad, the father's smoking is relevant and supports his case, because he's right that smoking is addictive. But note that we can see the relevance of his hypocrisy only after we've established what he's said is true. As a consequence, his hypocrisy in the example serves little more than a smokescreen for the son to overreact and to not take his advice. And so, again, getting hung up on Gore's purported hypocrisy is part of the problem.
Talisse and Aikin showed their political bias quite clearly, with the tone of the article clearly showing they have disdain for Christians and beleive that if there is hypocrisy in something they disagree with then it is bad and the hypocrisy of one person condemns the whole, while that which they support is not allowed to be treated in the same way, simply because they support it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the problem with modern science, as many insert their political bias into it, and instead of looking for truth and fact, they use science, twisted by their bias, to push their political agenda.
The authors should be ashamed of themselves.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalisse and Aikin showed their political bias quite clearly, with the tone of the article clearly showing they have disdain for Christians and beleive that if there is hypocrisy in something they disagree with then it is bad and the hypocrisy of one person condemns the whole, while that which they support is not allowed to be treated in the same way, simply because they support it.
Response: Convenient how you do not provide evidence for any of your claims! And yet you take yourself to be in a position to comment on what's wrong with "modern science." There is no basis in the article for your allegations. Please learn how to read more carefully.
Scott, (and Talisse)-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is your baby, and you are showing a mother's love for it.
I do seperate Al Gore from the climate change issue. I certainly don't get 'hung up' on him when I consider the problems, or the viable solutions. I don't consider him at all. However, as many of his fans are indeed guilty of doing that, as his detractors.
Al Gore is to climate change as Ted Haggarty is to Christianity as Che Gueverra is to Freedom Fighting as Neo-Cons are to Conservatism, as Enron is to Free Markets as the U.N. is to World Peace, and so on.
Whatever else they do or say, whatever the issue-at-hand, the fact is, They DO muck things up. Seperating them from the issues, logically and literally, is the best option.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is your baby, and you are showing a mother's love for it.
Response: Nonsense. You continue to post as if the essay were promoting some substantive view of Gore. But the article in fact advances no substantive view of Gore. I assume that to "show a mother's love" for our article would be to refuse to see its flaws. But we're not refusing to see a flaw, we're simply pointing out that you've misunderstood the article.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are writing to a general audience, and you will note that I am hardly the only one who has taken issue with the article, nor was I the first, nor do I suppose that I will be the last. I surmise there are many more people who never respond here, and more who never bother to read the comments at all. Of those, there are undoubtedly a number that will take issue in the same way, and others who will run with the logic they cherry-pick out to support Gore, and/or to villify Christianity.
I would console you a bit by saying its not your task to spoon-feed, but that wouldnh't be entirely true now would it? In journalism, and in science, there is indeed an onus to do just that, as opposed to a comment section, a chat group, or a frank discussion amongst peers.
So, chef, I ate your soup, and I didn't care for the after-taste. The fish wasn't fresh and it needed some salt.
Before commenting here I looked up both the authors on the internet to see if the leftist tone in this article was present in other areas and found that it clearly is. It amazes me how arrogant the left is, how much they look down their elitist noses at ordinary people, while brazenly showing a political bias that screams their far leftist views.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can pull the wool over the eyes of many people, but not all of us!
EB, with comments like "The article is your baby, and you are showing a mother's love for it," it is clear that you're not familiar with the basic categories of informal reasoning (in this case, ad hominem circumstantial) and as a consequence are blind to the actual thesis of our essay. Your accusation effectively runs: of course you defend your essay... you wrote it! Calling us (or specifically me) defensive is ridiculous... you are aware that you called us hypocrites in your first posting. If you'd like, I can call you names and ask you why you're acting so defensive, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom reading this article and others I find bad examples to be Christians, Fox News (fair & balanced and no spin zones), etc., while people like Al Gore and various leftist beliefs are the good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat makes EB totally correct, the authors are hypocrites, but then, being experts must be why they chose the subject!
Rogeregon, you say that we show our bias with the "tone" of the article. A strong accusation on the basis of some very nebulous data. We show a "disdain for Christians"? It's not clear what you're even talking about. The only assessment of Christian teachings was in reference to Ted Haggard's. Surely this does not amount to "clearly" showing bias of any sort. To think otherwise bespeaks a tendency to expect rather than detect bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRogeregon, so your evidence is that you find here and elsewhere (where?) that the "bad examples (are) Christians." Al Gore's a Christian, but you see him as a good example. Ted Haggard's a Christian, but that's irrelevant to the case, since the main question isn't whether his hypocrisy counts against Christianity but rather whether it counts against his authority.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd even if it were the case that the examples were slanted, why would it matter? The political upshot of the examples aren't important to the essay's thesis, which is about human reasoning and its pitfalls. They are simply examples to elucidate a point about good reasoning -- you don't have to think the examples are true to get the point about reasoning.
And finally, your use of a charge like 'hypocrite' is demonstrative of a serious intellectual failing -- accusing anyone who says things remotely critical of your views as being biased.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are Free to do so, and that is always a good thing in my humble opinion
Actually, I first called the article itself (ie the issue) hypocritical, before impugning the authors. if you want to be anal about it.
You write; ",,, it is clear that you're not familiar with the basic categories of informal reasoning (in this case, ad hominem circumstantial) ..."
No, I'm neither unlearned nor ininformed. Ad hominem tu quoque was the operative applied as to Gore, whereas ad hominem circumstantial the operative applied towards Haggarty. +/- Yes?
I summed it up with the colloquial pejorative 'Doublethink'.
Al Gore and many other liberal politicians are not Christians. They are, however, willing to bend in any direction to gain more votes, and even now America is a Christian nation- until you liberals find a way to ban all religion, just as your communist allies did in places like the Soviet Union and China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure you don't come out and say "we hate Christians and worship at the alter of socialist liberalism, with the goal of see traditional America replaced with a leftist state that banishes conservatives to re-education camps." But it's easy to see that here, as well as other sites where I found either of you talking, that you use leftist examples to show what is good and correct, while using conservative examples to show what is wrong.
It's like when a parent makes a child say I'm sorry, and they say the words, but glare at the other person and have a less than sincere tone to their voice. Sure, you can claim they made an apology, but in reality, it is easy to see that they are not sorry and didn't really make an apology.
Your sneaky pushing of your leftist bias is typical of elitist academics who are parasites on the American people, living off our tax dollars while bashing the very nation and people that you are feeding off of! It really is quite disgusting!
Perhaps, you two would have done better to use, as a balance, the rabidly anti-religious zealots out there who hide behind the banner of "Secular" and abuse it as a weapon, as a prime example of hypocricy. Just a humble suggestion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRogeregon, you're simply confused. Frankly, your last post demonstrates that you're out of your depth here. But I'll indulge you one last time and then you should just go away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, whatever views I (or Talisse) hold regarding religion are irrelevant to the article, since the article had absolutely nothing to do with religion. There were no conclusions regarding religion, no reference to theology, no reference to Christians as such. If you had to go to to outside sources (again, where?) to sharpen your case of bias in the article, it's good evidence that there wasn't much of the overt bias you claimed to be in the article. Second, if you're seeing us as part of a vast Leftist conspiracy, it really says more about you than it does about us. Finally, you (and EB) are perfect cases in point for the article -- that debates about the personal virtues and failings of authors and representatives more often cloud our capacity for calm judgment regarding their claims than not.
This is one source I found-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=getting-duped
"Getting Duped: How the Media Messes with Your Mind"
It goes on to blast the media, but uses "Bill O'Reilly/Fox News" as the only examples, bashes Bush, while also bashing those who have a problem with Ward Churchill and other leftists, such as yourselves.
You think you're so clever, keeping your leftist bias just barely above board, but it's there, it's obvious and you're clearly irritated that I'm pointing out that the leftist Emperor has no clothes!
And I love this-
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~robert.talisse/newswise.pdf
"Government Should Educate Public for Stronger Democracy"
with-
"Newswise — The U.S. government should take action to strengthen democracy by educating the public to be better citizens, argues Vanderbilt University philosopher Robert Talisse in his new book."
This sounds very much like what all the communist countries did, in their re-education camps. Who would be "educating" we unwashed masses that you look down on? Could it be the ultra-leftist academics who would, of course, educate the American people in the proper socialist ideals?
Anyway there were plenty other bits and pieces I found among many sources, all showing that you are clearly a left-winger and all your work is tainted with your obvious bias.
And you would definitely love to keep me off of here, wouldn't you. Leftists love freedom of speech, until it's something they disagree with, then they want to call it hate speech and have it banned, or if it's talk radio they want to make it fair by requiring equal time for leftists- but without forcing the same on tv, which is dominated by the left, which is fine.
I'm sure you're waiting for your lord, Obamessiah, to make sure we evil conservatives and Christians will be silenced, so you leftists can continue to transform America into a proper socialist paradise, where traditional American values will finally be banished, to be replaced with gay marriages, NAMBLA and other good leftist values.
The blind spot of this article, as well as most of its commenters, is a lack of analysis of the attitudes of the accuser. Hypocrisy is an incongruence between advocacy and action; Gore is called a hypocrite becuse his advocacy of low-impact lifestyle is contrasted with his action of extensive air travel and a large house, just as the smoker's son contrasts his advocacy of non-smoking with his action of smoking. With the accuser, however, we can ask: which side of the incongruency does the accuser target? Does the accuser oppose the action, or the advocacy? And is it a reasonable accusation or not?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe smoker's son presumably wants his father to stop smoking, not stop advocating non-smoking. The father, alas, is addicted to a drug that is harder to quit than heroin. If he could put the tobacco down, the son ought to be impressed and influenced.
In the case of Al Gore, we may ask "What would satisfy his critics?" A former Vice President of the United States, he runs his business from his home and gives speeches and slideshows all over the world. If he lived in a yurt and rode a donkey everywhere, would his critics be silenced? No. More likely they would jeer at the weirdo who lived in a yurt and rode a donkey.
The best evidence for my assertion is that the best-known tales of Gore's dishonesty were slanders. He never said "I invented the internet;" he claimed credit for his role in getting it built as a member of Congress, and in 2005 received an award for his achievements.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Similarly, the hypocrisy charges come from people who object not to his large-environmental-footprint lifestyle, but to the conservation he advocates. However, they can no longer publicly espouse this position, so they attack the messenger. The authors, Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, sadly take no opportunity to name any sources of the accusations or investigate their truth value.
Evidently, Sean Hannity was a major conduit of these stories, as of September 2007: http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com/2007/09/lets-get-al-gore-metrocard.html
Gore's own website responded: http://www.algore.org/forum/al_gore_news_and_events/gores_work_combat_climate_crisis/al_gores_use_private_jets
Another defender adds this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/5/112353/5699
Gore's defense: his house is about as green as he can make it; he buys carbon offsets, i.e. planting trees somewhere else to equal what carbon he uses; he usually flies commercial; he is doing the best he can.
Gore, a hypocrite?
No.
Rather than hypocrisy being the topic of this article/discussion, I would have preferred that it had pointed out and shamed the great majority of people (not excluding most politicians and scientists) because of their generally *hypo-critical* tendency - that is, a tendency to be lacking in capacity to be self-critical and to swallow hyper self-assured people's preachings without critically analyzing ('sniffing, tasting, and chewing on') their claims and proclamations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! Tom, I see your point! Gore could go out and burn a 50 gallon barrel of gas each and every day, as long as he pays some illegal immigrants to plant a tree for every gallon!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're not asking Gore, or countless other rich leftists, to live in poverty, but if they're going to tell us that reducing the carbon footprint of everyone is so important, so critical, then I don't see why they can't live much simpler lives, or shut up. Buying carbon offsets is no different from people buying indulgences from the Catholic church, so they may sin as much as they want, while buying forgiveness. It's another example of hypocrisy!
Unfortunately, I live in Oregon, so I'm surrounded by hypocritical leftists, including most of my family. They tend to be the ones who use other people, but don't bother to help others, they expect the government to provide for their every need, but don't see that they should have any responsibility toward society or even for themselves. They'll be wasteful, but recycle some cans and bottles and claim they are champions of the environment. They call anyone that has even slightly more money than themselves rich and think those people need to share their "wealth". Liberalism is like a cancer that is eating away at the self-reliance, morality and honesty of our society! And hypocrisy is their number one characteristic.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom your post- ",,,First, whatever views I (or Talisse) hold regarding religion are irrelevant to the article, since the article had absolutely nothing to do with religion. There were no conclusions regarding religion, no reference to theology, no reference to Christians as such."
From the article- "For example, when the preacher (Only a 'Christian' preacher used as example anywhere in the article) who presents himself as a moral authority gets caught having an adulterous affair, his followers may rightly call his teachings into question." (,,as notably contradistinguished from, [most any other type of] hypocricy depicted)
Just passive-aggressive or some sort of Freudian Slip? 'Plausible deniability'?
Those who feel the sleight better perceive the slant.
EB, ultra-leftist academics are used to having a tyranical hold on masses of students. If those students happen to be conservative, they either have to keep quiet and pretend to be liberal, or else suffer poor grades. I had a few teachers like that and I refused to play their game and suffered the only bad grades I'd ever had, but I was proud not to give in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, they have to face someone they don't have the power to silence or punish, it drives them crazy, especially when you are pointing out all the lies behind their words!
(Off topic) I don't know roger,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA lot of idealogues (on both sides, to be fair) really don't seem to perceive the logical leaps and hypocrisy in their own positions. As someone said, 'There are some mistakes you have to be highly educated in order to make'.
Philosophies in general, and most of all the Utopian ones, always look better on paper than with a gun to your head.
Same old story though, today's 'liberal reformers' quickly become tomorrow's iron-fisted oppressors and repressors. Why? Because if/when they finally get what they want, they want to do whatever it takes keep it exactly their way. The term 'liberal' then attaches to anyone BUT them.
The Christians who came to this country seeking refuge and Freedom from the European Establishment, were the 'liberals' in the context of the day.
Tom, you write: "The authors, Scott F. Aikin and Robert B. Talisse, sadly take no opportunity to name any sources of the accusations or investigate their truth value. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is right because we're not out to arbitrate whether those charged with hypocrisy are actually hypocrites. The article was designed to show that speaker hypocrisy is generally irrelevant to speaker message. So one can say: *even if* Gore's a hypocrite, there's no reason to dismiss what he says. You see, discussions of speaker virtue or vice is generally a stalling technique for those who are losing an argument. Furthermore, since you're citing articles (and there are plenty of other soruces) that rebut the Gore hypocrisy charge, why are you suggesting we reinvent the wheel? Our objective, again, was to present this point about indirect relevance, which is new.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=getting-duped
"Getting Duped: How the Media Messes with Your Mind"
It goes on to blast the media, but uses "Bill O'Reilly/Fox News" as the only examples, bashes Bush, while also bashing those who have a problem with Ward Churchill and other leftists, such as yourselves.
You think you're so clever, keeping your leftist bias just barely above board, but it's there, it's obvious and you're clearly irritated that I'm pointing out that the leftist Emperor has no clothes!
And I love this-
http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~robert.talisse/newswise.pdf
"Government Should Educate Public for Stronger Democracy"
with-
"Newswise The U.S. government should take action to strengthen democracy by educating the public to be better citizens, argues Vanderbilt University philosopher Robert Talisse in his new book."
Response: Nonsense. You're wrong about "Getting Duped," and have no idea about my philosophical (much less political) views. The blurb about the book you mention goes on to say that *Democracy After Liberalism* promotes a *republican* view of politics. But perhaps you didn't bother reading that far? And why should you? You take yourself to know *a priori!
More importantly, your claim was that the "Hypocrisy" article contains a "quite clear" bias. Now why don't you show the world you're not illiterate and produce some evidence?
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom the article- "For example, when the preacher (Only a 'Christian' preacher used as example anywhere in the article) who presents himself as a moral authority gets caught having an adulterous affair, his followers may rightly call his teachings into question." (,,as notably contradistinguished from, [most any other type of] hypocricy depicted)
Response: Oh... I see. And I suppose the fact that all of our examples are examples of *men* being hypocrites shows that we're anti-men? You're really reaching here: the bias that's supposedly so overt can be identified only if one *already believes* that it exists! Why don't you point to something actually in the article which counts as evidence of bias?
As things stand, you've repeatedly made a very serious accusation, but have thus far refused to account for it. And that's simply irresponsible.
Scott Aikin writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"This is right because we're not out to arbitrate whether those charged with hypocrisy are actually hypocrites. The article was designed to show that speaker hypocrisy is generally irrelevant to speaker message. So one can say: *even if* Gore's a hypocrite, there's no reason to dismiss what he says. "
You could have said: "even if Gore's a hypocrite (an accusation his supporters reject outright), there's no reason to dismiss what he says." As far as I could tell, there was not a single forthright exoneration of Al Gore anywhere in your article.
I think Gore was a poor choice for an example in the first place. It is better to be silent about a slander than to repeat it in a "balanced" way, as if you could remain above the fray. I trust you now see that error! Look at the comment thread. It's a Free Republic know-nothing lynch mob, and you gave them a tree around which to gather.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, not 'reaching'. As in your 'could have' retort, part of the suspicion/accusation of bias, coupled with your treatment of, stems from the notation that of all the examples you 'could have' used, you chose these. That leaves it coming off as buttons to push rather than benign illustration.
Being told that groups are sensitive to such things is not like some great shock to you. Had you [randomly?] chosen members of another race or religion/anti-religion and treated them in like manner, you would undoubtedly have the same aspersions leveled at you, along with other, more serious, ones. No doubt you, and your editor, are acutely aware of that, and make conscious exception for it.
Furthermore, rightly or not, you inherit some varnish as a contributor here. Out of every article that gives conspicuous mention of religion, and does so disparagingly, as 'anti-science'/enemy, near ALL of the embedded remarks are thrust at Christianity, or give examples that are readily identifiable as 'Christian' tenets and talking points. Truth being that Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccans, etc etc, are no less fair game for example, yet they are [as conspicuously] absent from task.
I calls em as I sees em.
Tom-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFact is that, as compared to Gore's lifestyle, Walden Wood was beyond question 'greener', without the negative connotations of robes and donkeys'. And, also beyond question, Walden Wood produced a much higher quality of material.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI calls em as I sees em.
Response: This can't possibly be true, since what you're "calling" are statements about the motivations of the authors, and what you're "seeing" are words on a page. Why don't you give up on the armchair psychoanalysis and provide some actual evidence? And, no, it's not evidence of bias to point to some element of the article and then simply declare it to reveal bias. *Show* the bias. This would require showing that there's no better explanation for some chosen element of the article than the authors' bias. Good luck.
Charges of the sort you've been posing are serious, since they accuse Aikin and I of either dishonesty or ineptitude. Serious charges call for significant evidence. So why won't you play fair and put some real evidence on the table? I know it's easier, and probably a lot more gratifying, to simply make things up, but in this forum what you're doing is irresponsible and I won't allow it to go unchallenged.
I think EB has done a wonderful job of pointing out the bias of the authors and that bias is extremely evident in all their writings. Of course, like the criminal that is caught red-handed, yet still claims to be innocent, leftists never, ever admit to their bias, no matter how obvious it is. Perhaps in their mind, their views are quite moderate and centrist- which makes true moderates into right wingers and those of us on the right are evil Nazis who should not be allowed freedom of speech.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a show of intellectual servility and love of baseless accusation that would have pleased Stalin, Rogeregon simply parrots previous assertions, but never provides even one shred of evidence of bias. This mode of mindless smearing, posing as serious and critical thinking, is the favored tool of tyrants everywhere. Hayek, Hook, and Nozick are turning in their graves. Rogeregon, you have betrayed the proud and formidable intellectual tradition for which you claim to speak. With friends like you, conservatism needs no enemies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! I'm just applying common sense! A rose by any other name is still a rose, and I can see through your attempts to tell us that despite your obvious bias, you are not biased.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne last thing: I find no flaw in the basic idea of the article. I understand the intent of the authors; they were not looking for a food fight. They simply overlooked the risk of one, in my opinon. (It seems to have been in full swing when I got here, anyways... thanks mainly to the Bluto Blutarski wing. These folks will always be around, which is why the cafeteria has door locks.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver and out.
Rogeregon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPressing accusations without providing evidence is not "common sense," it's just childishness. Grown-ups understand the need to provide evidence for their claims. Once again, if the bias is so obvious, why don't you give some proof?
I listed a number of examples, and EB has done the same, but you just keep denying it, which isn't a surprise because leftists never admit to any wrong doing, no matter how obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the examples are from other articles, first. You can't prove the bias in one, if you have to look elsewhere, Rogeregon. This was pointed out much earlier, but you continue to press this. Second, your defense that our samples are biased doesn't hold up, because plenty of the people who get criticized both good and bad are Christians -- Gore, Spitzer, and heck, maybe even smoker dad. But you deny that Gore's a Christian, because he's a liberal. Now, please, Rogeregon, let us not parse who's really a Christian and who's not... maybe even on your strict standards Ted Haggard's not a Christian, either... and then you've got absolutely no case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, Rogeregon, it must be very nice for you to have two people take you seriously in such a public forum, but given your baseless accusations, inability to respond to any of our challenges, and lack of interest in actually reading the article (it was about how quesitons of vice in speakers detract from their message, and you can't get beyond the vice), you hardly deserve it. Call it charity.
I looked elsewhere to see if the bias in this article was a one time example or else a pattern in all your work and I found that it is representative of all your work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't believe Haggard is a Christian. Many charismatic people who are looking for power over others become politicians, preachers, etc. Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are. The Clintons attended church regularly, as do many other Democratic politicians, but in their lives they show that Christianity has no place at all, beyond the show, which is to make sure they get a portion of the average American public to vote for them. If they revealed their humanist, anti-Christian values to clearly, then they would have a hard time getting elected.
I keep responding to your challenges, but because they prove your bias, you chose to ignrore them. I never expected you to own up to your bias, because leftists never do.
Oh, I read the article, twice. After checking the other sources I came back to read it again to see just how it tied in to all your other leftist ramblings.
Again, I'm sure you wish forums such as this could be limited to only good leftist readers, so you wouldn't have to face any exposure of your bias, but rather 100% praise from fellow liberals.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI keep responding to your challenges, but because they prove your bias, you chose to ignrore them. I never expected you to own up to your bias, because leftists never do.
Response: You're either lying or deeply mistaken. Please cite *one* case of bias. And, let me remind you, simply declaring that some of other sentence reveals bias is not sufficient. The burden is on you to *show* it. The reason why you have yet to succeed in meeting this dialectical burden is that your view is patently false. You can keep going on about "leftists" and other such nonsense, but the call for evidence to back up a claim is not political in the least. It's what grown-ups do when they're trying to be rational. Try it some time.
So that cuts it, Rogeregon: "I don't believe Haggard is a Christian. " So no Christians, by your lights, are criticized in the article. So no anti-Christian bias. Q.E.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh, but you leftists always point to people like Haggard as representing Christianity. That's always used to bash Christians, just as how a few abortion clinic bombers are also used to portray Christianity as evil, or even the Crusades, from centuries ago. So, I'm not complaining about Haggard being used because I don't like him being attacked, but rather because it's a typical tactic of leftists, to use anyone who claims to be a Christians and who proves to be hypocritical as an example of the evils of Christianity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say "to Gore's credit" about his buy carbon offsets. So he can pollute all he wants, but he's a great guy for throwing a tiny amount of his wealth into planting some trees? You say Gore's message for us peons to sacrifice to reduce carbon emissions is only bolstered by his hypocrisy, yet you question the message of Christian teachings because of the preacher's hypocrisy. If you weren't showing bias, you'd say the same as Gore, that just because the preacher isn't living by his words, it only bolsters the message that adultery is destructive to people. But you are biased, so you used the Christian message as one that is damaged by hypocrisy of individuals, while leftist thought is only bolstered by it- in other words, leftist ideals are proven both by living by them and not living by them!
Rogeregon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHa! Aikin just showed that you've contradicted yourself. Yet you carry on with unwarranted generalizations about "you leftists" and other nonsense about Christmas and what not, as if you knew the first thing about my or Aikin's political views. (Trust me: you don't.) Then you mistake *giving credit* with *endorsing*!! One can give credit to Gore for the offsets while still blaming him overall: not everyone who is bad is as bad as can be. Such an elementary moral distinction, obvious to your average 8th grader, but apparently too sophisticated for you.
I clearly pointed out how the use of a guy who claims to be a Christian preacher, even if he isn't one I'd acknowledge as being so, was typical of the way leftists look for anything they can to discredit Christianity. It doesn't matter if Haggard is truly a Christian, but the message the two of you pass on- look at the hypocritical Christians who don't live by their message, which shows that the message is proved wrong by the hypocrisy, yet the saintly Gore may be hypocritical, but it only points out how correct his message is, so we must thank him, and besides, he makes up for it by flinging his pocket change into planting a few trees, so he truly is a great guy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can deny, over and over, try to put up a smoke screen, etc., but your liberal bias is brazenly clear. Your academic elitist snobbishness is also clear. Of course, in all those communist countries, they used people like you to advance their revolutions, but who were the first people the communists then killed and imprisoned? The academic leftists, because even the commies realized that they are a traitorous, back stabbing bunch.
Rogeregon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you point to something actually said in the essay to support your allegation that we take Haggard to be a fair representation of Christians as such? Why don't you point to the place in the article where we say that Gore should be praised? I know why you have not done these things: you can't. And the reason why you can't is because there's no bias in the article. You're just making things up. Aren't you ashamed?
Rogeregon writes: "but the message the two of you pass on- look at the hypocritical Christians who don't live by their message, which shows that the message is proved wrong by the hypocrisy, yet the saintly Gore may be hypocritical, but it only points out how correct his message is"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst (and again), the point is a logical one: namely that some cases of hypocrisy can be indirectly relevant to (and in some cases supportive of) a case. You don't have to agree to the examples to get the logical point. Even you seem to understand the logical point (at times), but you've gotten hung up on something entirely extraneous to the article. You're battling someone who's not part of this conversation.
Second, since you've come to the point of calling us traitors, let me turn some questions to you, Rogeregon. You'd mentioned that you're living in Oregon, oppressed by the liberal voters and liberal members of your family -- are you here to relive the rhetorical beatings your neighbors and your little niece give you? Do you like to say crazy things, get refuted, then act offended? It seems that's the case, because you're a real glutton for punishment. We are not your oppressors, nor are we your therapists. If you want to play out more of your psychodramas, please sell crazy elsewhere.
LOL! Again, you'd love for me to be banished, to allow you to spew your bias without being challenged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou definitely don't use Haggard as a fair representation of Christians. It's just that you used Gore as an example of good hypocrites and someone who the left consider as representative of Christians as your example of a bad hypocrite.
It all comes down to your argument being that leftists like Gore can be hypocritical and they are still to be listened to, to even be praised if they pay for indulgences to cover their hypocrisy, while anything to do with non-leftist issues, especially Christianity, is proved to be wrong when a preacher, who claims to represent the Christian message, is hypocritical.
Again, why is it that Gore's hypocrisy only reinforces his message, while a preacher saying that adultery is bad doesn't do so when it's found that he;s been committing adultery and his life is ruined. See, if you didn't show bias, but claimed something equal, like this, then though some of us could quibble with your conclusions, there'd have been no hint of bias.
But, like in all the other examples of your work that I could look up, you do have bias, and lots of it.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! Again, you'd love for me to be banished, to allow you to spew your bias without being challenged.
Response: That's an amazing claim to make in reference to two people who have been taking time to respond to your posts! I know it must be frustrating for you to be responded to by honest inquirers who call for nothing more than evidence in support of your allegations. The fact is that this thread suggests the following conclusion: You're the biased one because you're unwilling to countenance a distinction between those with whom you disagree and those who are intellectually disingenuous. You take the mere fact (so you think it is) that you and I hold opposed views about politics to be *proof* that I'm intellectually and morally beyond the pale. That's a tyrant's view of the world. You meet calls for evidence with more nonsense about "leftists" (many people who know me are thoroughly entertained by that one, by the way!) and other such foolishness, because you're committed to the view that honest intellectual exchange with those with whom you disagree is impossible. There's no better recipe for ensuring that you never learn anything (even the strongest grounds for your own views!). Good luck with it.
LOL! " (many people who know me are thoroughly entertained by that one, by the way!) "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, most conservatives are proud to call themselves such. But among the left, they tend to shy from being labeled as such. In fact it seems the further left a person is, the more they protest against being such, and the more they believe they represent the center. As leftists tend to only hang out with other leftists, I'm sure your friends see you as unbiased and in the center, as they most likely also see themselves, even if they support communism.
As I've said, I took the time to check out other sources dealing with both of you and found the clear leftist bias there as I've found here. Perhaps you don't think it exists, because to you it's only reasonable to support leftist views while vilifying the right. But it's still bias.
Again, the fact that you had to go beyond the article to gather whatever you think is evidence of the article's bias shows that there's no bias in the article. Further, if you'd actually read the article or any of the material out there from either of us, you're not going to find Leftism or Liberalism as the main motives in politics. Talisse is a regular critic of Liberalism, and I generally work in logic... so I'm afraid that whatever "research" you did on us was as careful as the arguments and accusations you make. That is, it wasn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for my invitations for you to exit the conversation, you should note that your voice has taken over the comments page on this article, and your incapacity to make or keep up with perfunctory points has obscured other worthwhile exchanges. I'm not suggesting that you exit because you're making things hard for me, because you're not. Really, I beginning to feel a little bad about rubbing your nose in it again and again (But you do ask for it)... Rather, I'm suggesting that you exit because you're making it hard for any other voice than your own be heard. If you really cared about equal time, perhaps you'll move on (or start your own blog!) and let others who have something more to say than BIAS! or LEFTIST! contribute.
Aikin:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet's see if we can't save this comments section. Isn't there a question, thus far not explored, about what is meant by "bias"? Does believing things that "leftists" ("rightists," what have you) believe make one "biased" in favor of those views? Doesn't it matter what *justification* one can produce in favor of one's views? Surely "bias in favor of p" must be different from simply "belief that p"? It seems to me that charges of "bias" must come to the charge that one favors or is sympathetic to certain kinds of views either for no reason or for reasons that one refuses to make public.
If something like this is correct, then the charge of bias against the article is total nonsense: we neither support Gore nor condemn Christians, and what we do say about Gore (viz., that those who believe his views will see his hypocrisy as evidence of their truth) is supported by reasons we supply. Perhaps there's another conception of "bias" that's being employed by Rogeregon; if so, I'd be interested to know what it is (I'm not holding my breath, though).
Rogeregon:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou still have cited no evidence of bias in the article, but continue to simply make things up. Bravo!
We are reduced to semantics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFew even understand what true 'liberalism' or 'conservatism' is and means at any given moment, or how to use it in the proper context when looking back historically. It was a bunch of Christians gave us Freedom of Speech, Conscience and Religion, the Seperation of Church & State, etc.etc etc, some of the most novel and liberal Freedoms that Humanity has enjoyed during our time on this planet.
It was Republicans who gave us the abolition of slavery, and it WAS die-hard Democrats who gave us the slave-holding side of the Civil War AND even the Ku Klux Klan & legislative excrement such as the 14th Amendment(Jim Crow/civil, a gratia rights instead of full Inalienable Rights).
To be an [actual] 'Conservative' in a recognizable Constitutional sense IS to embrace a classic form of liberalism, and Jeffersonian [local] Democracy. This contradistinguished from that of the Democratic Party, which is Jacksonian [National] Democracy that is rooted in an earlier Elitist form of conservatism.
(One may also look at it in terms of gemeinschaft vs. gesellschaft).
The modern manifestations of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism' are at once pale shadows and ghastly spectre's of their former selves, and, to tie it to the topic, both are very much fundamentally hypocritical, moreover they actually use, abuse and depend upon their own hypocricy in pursuit of their very-much similar agenda's. Both very much lost in the fog of their own Doublethink.
"All governments are run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed" Will Rogers
EB, you are right. The terms liberal and conservative in modern American politics isn't black and white, and definitely not 100% accurate. I consider myself a conservative and broke with my family by considering myself a Republican when I was 10, but I'm not the stereotype that many on the left like to portray.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live between the forested coast range of Oregon on one side and the dunes and beach on the other and I don't want our environment destroyed- but I cringe at being an "environmentalist", simply because of the fanatic image so many environmentalist show. I'm for CEO's ,are corrupt and ruin the lives of the workers in a company, being thrown into prison for life and all their money and possessions being split among the workers.
Also I wasn't happy with any of the stable of candidates the Republicans put forth, and I've had problems with President Bush not stopping illegal immigration, not cutting back the huge government waste and bureaucracy, etc., but I also considered those the Democrats had to be even worse. So, I'm not an unthinking partisan.
I do, however, see a constant stream of bias from within our education system. Not only from the news, but even my sister mentions how they are now indoctrinating kids in grade and middle schools, as she finds from her kids and her work helping at the schools. I dealt with a few very leftist teachers who were blatant in punishing students that were conservative. And we know how the majority of journalists identify themselves as liberal, and how the majority of our media, just like the majority of educators, consciously or unconsciously push their bias in those professions.
Talisse, I gave the examples of your bias over and over, yet you reject it- but I would never expect you to admit to it. Leftists I know who call Bush a Hitler, claim that all Republicans are Nazis, etc., also tell me they have no bias. They believe that all their attacks on the right and defense of all that is to the left is just fact and so not biased in any way.
Aikin, how could I pass up being comment 100?
"I'm THIS," and "I'm THAT," and "Conservatism was THIS," and "now it's THAT," and "Liberalism did THAT!" Do you not recognize in your own words and methods the very error that the article identifies? The very error both of you have claimed to recognize and agree should be vilified? When you use such labels (conservatism, liberalism), and when you seek authority by saying "I'm not what you expect," you commit the same sin: irrelevance and obfuscation. You throw such claims up as shields, but you do what the article and both of you have condemned: burying your heads in the sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe's a liberal, so his claims must be wrong. I'm not what most people mean when they say conservative, so my claims are worthy of closer inspection.
The accusation of bias and the accusation of hypocrisy play the same role here: ad hominem distraction.
I'm not sure the meth-addled preacher example shows how hypocrisy can be relevant to the truth of the hypocritical statement, fellas (or did I misunderstand your point?). Maybe homosexuality is wrong? Whether the preacher likes the taste of caulk or not, and whether he admits it or preaches against it doesn't seem to have much to do with its moral status.
W/E dude(?),
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI Reserve the line-item veto in everything I believe/reject, support/oppose, expecially so where politics and government are concerned.
I am and have always been a strong advocate that everyone else should, and should be able to, do no less for themselves, and for their fellow man.
It's all about science being used to push political views instead of truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand your last comment, EB.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRogeregon: shouldn't science educate political views? Shouldn't all truth educate political judgments? I think this is part of the point being made by the authors. Truth (and its methods) is vastly more important in evaluating a message than the character of the messenger (which seems to be entirely unimportant).
I can see one instance when the accusation of hypocrisy might be useful: in the shortcuts we use to educate children. "Don't listen to that man, because he doesn't do as he says." Even then it seems vicious, insofar as it's as cowardly as telling children to do something "because I told you to." The sights one misses taking that shortcut are probably worth seeing.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalisse, I gave the examples of your bias over and over, yet you reject it- but I would never expect you to admit to it.
Response: No. You've given no evidence. You've simply declared that there's bias and that it's obvious. Pointing to the fact that, e.g., Aikin and I use Haggard as an example of hypocrisy and then simply declaring that this fact reveals our anti-Christian bias is *not* to provide evidence. Providing evidence would require, among other things, showing that there's no other plausible explanation for the selection of that example. Until you can give an argument of this sort, your charges of bias are baseless.
What I meant by that was, simply, that I don't accept anything whole-cloth or at face value because I like, identify or agree with some elements of it, or because 'it' is the 'enemy of my enemy', and vica versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing politics as an example, its one of the reasons I unabashedly despise BOTH Parties and their duopoly on Power. Both are a zero sum gain, as are 'compromises' between the two. I am not Left, Right or "Center" (as that denotes occupying some recognizable balance between tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum, still as much pigeon-holed betwixt the evils of two lessers.)
Talisse,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right, the current discussion needs some clarification of at least one or two concepts. The crucial one is "bias," and here may be a rough first try at the success conditions for accusations of bias:
Argument A is the result of bias on the basis of speaker S if A contains data in the form of premises that support only S's preferred conclusion (p) and other readily available data that contravene p has been suppressed. (data may be count as suppressed in A if S can reasonably be held to be aware of the data, but S does not countenance it in A)
So, again on this rough version, a charge of bias has three dialectical burdens: (i) that A's data supports a conclusion p that S favors, (ii) that there is readily available data for S that undercuts p, and (iii) that S's argument actually is designed to support p, not that p may be an incidental feature of the argument.
The charges of bias here, I think, fail along two lines. First, I haven't seen any available data that we've overlooked that undercut our conclusions... the charges about Gore seem to be in denial about the force of Gore's suggestions, and though his use of offsets may be troubling, they are reflective of the general problem Gore himself criticizes -- namely that it's hard to reduce our impact on the environment without large scale changes in the way we use energy. That it's elitist, really, misses the boat entirely, because if the point is that only rich people can do it, that shows Gore's point even better -- you've got to be rich, in this environment, not to have an impact. So charges of elitism... support Gore's point.
The second reason why the bias charges fail is that none of this is central to the article's conclusion. (condition iii) If there are ancillary issues, ones that if the examples are right follow (but they don't have to be for our express conclusion to follow), that's not bias, that's bonus.
Hopefully a little light amidst the heat
O.K., so just tell me why you say that Gore's or the smoking dad's hypocrisy reinforce their messages, but then say "For example, when the preacher who presents himself as a moral authority gets caught having an adulterous affair, his followers may rightly call his teachings into question."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShouldn't you use the same rationale that you use with Gore? Just because the preacher is a hypocrite, does that call into question the Christian message, or just the preacher's character? Saying drug use or prostitution are bad, then being caught doing them and having their career and personal life ruined would seem to reenforce their previous message.
But you say that Gore's hypocrisy proves his message while the preacher's calls his into question. That's one of the points that I see as a problem here.
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisO.K., so just tell me why you say that Gore's or the smoking dad's hypocrisy reinforce their messages, but then say "For example, when the preacher who presents himself as a moral authority gets caught having an adulterous affair, his followers may rightly call his teachings into question."
Shouldn't you use the same rationale that you use with Gore?
Response: Still unable to supply evidence of your claims, I see. But your question is helpful, since it reveals that you haven't understood the argument of the article at all. The reason why we treat Smoking Dad and Gore differently from the preacher is simple: the former two cases have a logical feature that the other does not have, namely, that, in the former cases, the hypocrisy counts as evidence in favor of the view, whereas in the latter, the hypocrisy does not have that feature. But that's a point about logic, not a political or moral point.
And one would think that the logical point is simple enough. Take Smoking Dad. Dad's view is that part of what makes smoking bad is that it's addictive; so the fact that Dad himself smokes is a kind of evidence for his view. To wit: one who believes that one shouldn't smoke, and yet does smoke, must be smoking against his will-- and that's what it is to be addicted. So that Dad smokes is evidence that smoking is, indeed, addictive; his hypocrisy is evidence that his view is correct. Gore's position is, in part, that entrenched habits of consumption, and our society in general, lead us to unavoidably destroy the environment. One who believes that Gore is right about this will see his hypocrisy as evidence of this view ("even GORE can't escape it!"). By contrast, a preacher who affirms the sinfulness of adultery and is an adulterer does not by means of his adultery provide evidence for the sinfulness of adultery.
So, once again, you've provided no basis for your charges of bias. And I've shown that the examples you're on about were chosen for their *logical* features, and that the cases you think should be treated identically are logically not identical. So don't be a coward: how about admitting that you've been wrong throughout this entire thread?
Rogeregon, you write: "O.K., so just tell me why you say that Gore's or the smoking dad's hypocrisy reinforce their messages, but then say "For example, when the preacher who presents himself as a moral authority gets caught having an adulterous affair, his followers may rightly call his teachings into question."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo this is a charge of a double standard. But you can first see that the Gore and smoker dad cases are different logically from the Haggard case. talisse already showed that, but it's worth one more point: Haggard can't point to some systematic feature of the environment that he's criticizing that leads him to his hypocrisy... in that case, perhaps his case would be bolstered, but there's no evidence that Haggard made such a case.
Now, the second issue is one that Satan Was Right also keyed on earlier, which was why Haggard's hypocrisy hurts his message. I tried in an earlier post to speak to this, but it got drown out. I'll try again. And if you're into doing research on this topic, I'll refer you to a full article I wrote on this issue, too.
http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/77
Here's a thumbnail version of the argument: in some cases, the hypocrisy of a speaker can be evidence of a number of reasons to discount the things he says: it can be evidence of his insincerity (so you can't take the things he says just on his authority), it can be evidence of his moral incompetence (so he may have no moral authority to speak to the issue), or it can be evidence of the infeasibility of the advice (so it's advice we can't take). I call these cases of 'indirect relevance' to the speaker's argument.
So, with Haggard, I think his hypocrisy is evidence both of his duplicity and his moral incompetence. So people shouldn't take the things he says to be true on the basis of his authority. So they should call them into question. That doesn't mean that the things he said were wrong, nor does it necessarily even touch his public reasonings, but it does undercut his authority... and as a consequence, people should undertake some critical review of the things he'd said. That's a pretty weak conclusion, but if you look at our article, that's all we said.
Bias is an interesting and very big subject on its own. I often tell people "I know you won't believe this: but brainwashing is real, it's everywhere, and almost nobody is entirely free of it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe all operate on many unexamined assumptions in order to get through the day; while it would seem desirable to gather all the facts about every decision or subject, examine all the ramifications, and only reach a conclusion when all possible error was expunged, this is not possible. Nobody has time, and the world is in motion. Life is the art of making good decisions on incomplete data.
Information will always be limited, imperfect, and possibly wrong. Furthermore, there are many people who make a living making sure you have an inaccurate picture of reality. I recall hearing about someone who somehow defected out of North Korea, reminiscing about a childhood of dancing and singing in plays dedicated to Dear or Great Leader. She (I think it was a she) said something like this: "They told us we were very lucky to live in North Korea, that every other country was an unlivable hellhole by comparison. And we believed it! How could we possibly know otherwise? We only had the government media to tell us what things were like. Nothing from outside was allowed. And we could not leave and see for ourselves."
There's a very entertaining and informative free E-book by Asst. Prof. Bob Altemeyer of the University of Manitoba titled "The Authoritarians." He's done sociological studies of authoritarian behavior for 40 years (post-Milgram type experiments) and gives an overview of his findings there.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
In a nutshell, he has found that people who imprint the meme "It's a dangerous world" exhibit more authoritarian personality traits: submission to authority, or very autocratic behavior if they are the authority; blaming the victim, double standards ("If the President does it, that means that it is not a crime"), violent xenophobia, a sense of moral superiority; and if there is disagreement between powerful leaders or scientists, they side with their leaders.
Altemeyer tells of running a Global Change Game in a gym, one day with 67 people who scored lower on authoritarian personality traits, the next day with 68 who scored higher. The gym had a big world map on the floor; players were divided into different nations; over a couple of hours they played 40 years of game time. The less authoritarian crowd did an imperfect but unusually good job. The high scorers nuked the world. Killed everyone.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of those examples are a matter of pure personal perspective where the acts themselves are subject to judgement. 'You' may posit there is nothing 'sinful' about adultery, or that its ambiguous, in the preacher example. Yet, another may view Gore's lifestyle as environmentally adulterous, (or even as environmental rape).
We know nicotene, and meth, are extremely addictive, and there are a lot of people highly educated in the 'sciences' who's bread-and-butter is "treating" sex addiction(s). You; in the article and since cite Gore's beyond-the-pale carbon addiction as supporting his call for reductions.
You do appear to be making some 'judgement calls' of your own in the way you present. Or, at the very least, you are unaware/unsympathetic to the fact that each reader will regard the relevence and positive/negative qualities of each example, from their own personal vantage, as do you.
To a lot of people, I am sure their family and closest friends & supporters included, the preacher and Spitzer provided a great deal of evidence for the 'sinfulness' of adultery. There are many negative and tangible repercussions for such behaviors, both before and after they are exposed. Same with smoking, same with carbon-heavy life-styles, same for hypocrisy in general.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for tempering some of that, you posted during the interrim of me replying to something Talisse had said just prior.
Tom-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for sharing that, very interesting character traits at play, always.
EB did a much better job of putting what I was trying to say into words-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To a lot of people, I am sure their family and closest friends & supporters included, the preacher and Spitzer provided a great deal of evidence for the 'sinfulness' of adultery."
I guess we're seeing the whole thing from such different views that it's probably impossible that either side would ever truly understand the other.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of those examples are a matter of pure personal perspective where the acts themselves are subject to judgement. 'You' may posit there is nothing 'sinful' about adultery, or that its ambiguous, in the preacher example. Yet, another may view Gore's lifestyle as environmentally adulterous, (or even as environmental rape).
Response: Wrong again. I've nowhere posited anything about whether adultery is sinful, and nothing in the argument requires me to pronounce on that. Of course one may see Gore's lifestyle as sinful or adulterous or what have you. But doesn't matter for the argument. Once again-- slowly so that you might understand it-- the argument is this: Sometimes, that fact that an advocate of a position is a hypocrite with respect to that position counts as evidence in favor of the position. Note: to concede this point is *not* to say that in such cases hypocrisy is excusable or not blameworthy or that the hypocrite is not to be criticized for his hypocrisy. It is, again, simply to say that the hypocrisy itself provides evidence of position the hypocrite advocates. In other cases, however, hypocrisy does not supply evidence for the truth of a hypocrite's position. And the difference is not a matter "pure personal perspective"; again, it's a logical point concerning the content of the positions under consideration. If Smoking Dad believes he shouldn't smoke, and yet does, he must smoke involuntarily (viz., he's addicted); if Dad's view is that part of the badness of smoking is that it's addictive, then Dad's hypocrisy is evidence of his view. However, the fact that a preacher condemns adultery but is an adulterer provides no evidence for the wrongness of adultery. Note that to concede this is *not* to assert that there's nothing wrong with adultery; it's simply to say that the preacher's adultery is irrelevant to the question. Simple, right?
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of those examples are a matter of pure personal perspective where the acts themselves are subject to judgement. 'You' may posit there is nothing 'sinful' about adultery, or that its ambiguous, in the preacher example. Yet, another may view Gore's lifestyle as environmentally adulterous, (or even as environmental rape).
Response: Wrong again. I've nowhere posited anything about whether adultery is sinful, and nothing in the argument requires me to pronounce on that. Of course one may see Gore's lifestyle as sinful or adulterous or what have you. But doesn't matter for the argument. Once again-- slowly so that you might understand it-- the argument is this: Sometimes, that fact that an advocate of a position is a hypocrite with respect to that position counts as evidence in favor of the position. Note: to concede this point is *not* to say that in such cases hypocrisy is excusable or not blameworthy or that the hypocrite is not to be criticized for his hypocrisy. It is, again, simply to say that the hypocrisy itself provides evidence of position the hypocrite advocates. In other cases, however, hypocrisy does not supply evidence for the truth of a hypocrite's position. And the difference is not a matter "pure personal perspective"; again, it's a logical point concerning the content of the positions under consideration. If Smoking Dad believes he shouldn't smoke, and yet does, he must smoke involuntarily (viz., he's addicted); if Dad's view is that part of the badness of smoking is that it's addictive, then Dad's hypocrisy is evidence of his view. However, the fact that a preacher condemns adultery but is an adulterer provides no evidence for the wrongness of adultery. Note that to concede this is *not* to assert that there's nothing wrong with adultery; it's simply to say that the preacher's adultery is irrelevant to the question. Simple, right?
But the preacher's adultery ruins his life and career, so isn't it proving that his preaching against adultery, though hypocritical, actually reinforces his message that it is something people shouldn't do, just as you say Gore's excessive lifestyle proves that people need to cut back on their carbon footprint.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, I don't see any difference. Each is saying that there are bad effects when you engage in actions that they are telling people to change, yet you come up with Gore's hypocrisy reinforcing his message but a hypocritical preacher's message is then in question because of his?
Tom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA nice reference to Altenmeyer. He and Bruce Hunsberger have done a good bit of research correlating authoritarian personality types and a number of other characteristics: dogmatism, prejudice, and lack of self-awarness. Though it's purely speculative, it certainly seems that such a trajectory would probably also include hypocrisy.
Altenmeyer and Hunsberger's _Amazing Conversions_ is a fantastic survey of this (and their follow-up _Atheists_ expands these sorts of observations)
Rogeregon, you write: "But the preacher's adultery ruins his life and career, so isn't it proving that his preaching against adultery, though hypocritical, actually reinforces his message that it is something people shouldn't do, just as you say Gore's excessive lifestyle proves that people need to cut back on their carbon footprint."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that Haggard's getting caught ruins his life and career proves that it's unwise to commit adultery and use drugs, not yet that it's morally wrong. He held that we should live the clean life for reasons that have nothing obviously to do with the benefits of not being caught, but because of moral and theological reasons. It may strengthen his *conclusion, but it doesn't help his *argument. Unless part of Haggard's message was a general critique of society such that even people who live the clean life can't help but end up smoking meth in bed with male prostitutes, I don't see how his failures help make his case. Again, you are right that Haggard's fall is instructive, but that lesson is not part of Haggard's teachings.
Gore, on the other hand, argued that because of the consequences of energy use, we have both individual and social responsibilities to change usage pathways. But unless there is larger social change, it is nigh impossible for individuals to do what's necessary. As a consequence, his failures are (if he is right) evidence for his view. Again, we haven't endorsed the view here, it's that we're showing how some cases of hypocrisy can be indirectly relevant to the views... but you have to assess the views for their correctness first.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou Write; '...Sometimes, that fact that an advocate of a position is a hypocrite with respect to that position counts as evidence in favor of the position...'
I don't disagree with that statement per se, and never did.
Where we seem to part ways is in point-of-view, interpretation of the data, personal values, the value of X.
To my mind, the preacher buying degeneracy off-sets is no different than Gore leaving an extra $20.00 on Earth's nightstand.
Both men espouse(d) what I consider worthy issues, the hypocritical actions/lifestyles of both men lend support to those issues. I suppose that does depend on which way you approach each. That one is overtly environmental and one overtly societal puts the judgment as to which is more, less or equally important to the individual, upon the individual
Scott-
You write- ',,, Again, you are right that Haggard's fall is instructive, but that lesson is not part of Haggard's teachings... '
Actually, falls from Grace and the personal and societal ills of hypocrisy, [over-]indulgence etc, etc etc, are very prominent aspect of Judeo-Christian teachings, as well as in other Faiths. They all speak, or attempt to speak, to the universal truths of the 'human condition', to borrow Joseph Campbell's term.
'Haggard's teachings' were laid out long before he ever came along. Nothing about them 'belongs' to him. He is certainly not listed in any of the credits.
There again though, you manage to come at the problem in a, dare I say, problematic way. You make a point by placing Haggard in the context of being somehow inseperable from what he preached.
EB writes: You Write; '...Sometimes, that fact that an advocate of a position is a hypocrite with respect to that position counts as evidence in favor of the position...' I don't disagree with that statement per se, and never did. Where we seem to part ways is in point-of-view, interpretation of the data, personal values, the value of X. To my mind, the preacher buying degeneracy off-sets is no different than Gore leaving an extra $20.00 on Earth's nightstand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse: More nonsense. EB, you wrote in an earlier post: "I found the article to be, hypocritical. The Al Gore apologetics especially. Its tantamount to giving NAMBLA a pass,,, for supporting orphanages. Its unadulterated Double-Think." So, either you're lying now, or you now must admit that you misunderstood the article in nearly all of your previous posts. So which is it? Are you thick or a liar?
Moreover, your claim that where we differ is in "point-of-view, interpretation of the data, personal values, the value of X" is just more nonsense. I'll leave aside the fact that you've now (conveniently, quietly) backed off your "unadulterated Double-Think" charge; instead I'll try to instruct you (once again) that the argument of the article has nothing to do with "point-of-view" or "interpretation of the data." The article demonstrates that some positions have *as a logical feature deriving from their content* the curious property that an advocate's hypocrisy constitutes evidence for the position. There's nothing perspectival about it, and it does not depend on what one's value commitments happen to be. Again, it's a *logical* feature. Why don't you go back and read the article, and this time try to understand it?
I think an important difference (and one that might help you understand the authors' point) between Gore and Haggard is that there is no way for Gore to not be a hypocrite (he would have to stop breathing), but there is a way for Haggard to not be a hypocrite (he could stop smoking both the meth and the caulk). Unless, of course, dying for our convictions when we can so die is contemplated by the normative force at issue (see your local suicide bomber)....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, though, all this is irrelevant to the logical point explained by Talisse and the main point of the article.
The reference to the consequences of Haggard's fall (career, personal life, etc.) does not give his example the same logical status as the examples of the smoking dad and Gore. Of course, if the moral impetus (I didn't want to use "normative force" again) of the christian teachings includes a cost-benefit analysis, then maybe it does share the same logical status? I can't say I'm a capable logician, but I do know that churchies often (if not most frequently) use a cost-benefit analysis to proselytize; namely, "What's going to happen to you when you die?" I don't see how the basis of honest belief be fear or cost-benefit analysis, but there you go.
EB, your point, "'Haggard's teachings' were laid out long before he ever came along. Nothing about them 'belongs' to him. He is certainly not listed in any of the credits," is well-taken, but it's still not on target.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRedemption stories (e.g., drug addicts turned preachers) have the same "human condition" element to them you reference earlier in your posting. And the speakers' failures can be reflective of their general argument. The difference between Haggard and these cases is that Haggard's case gets the order wrong. A meth addict turned preacher displays moral intelligence of a sort, a preacher turned meth addict displays incompetence.
Again, Haggard's fall may still be evidence for the view that virtue is fragile, and it is most certainly evidence for the bad consequences of vice, but it equally certainly undercuts the credence we should give to him to pronounce on these things.
He doesn't have to make huge sacrifices to his life if he doesn't smoke meth while getting a (ahem) backrub. His followers can (and should) re-evaluate the things he said, because his behavior reflects a real failure of moral intelligence that makes it impossible for him to be a credible leader. **Given Haggard's incompetence, one should say that his lighting on (again for the sake of argument) the correct view was entirely accidental.** If Haggard is right about the clean life, we have no explanation for why he fails to follow his advice. Note, though, this is not the case for Gore (again assuming that Gore is right, as we had done for Haggard), as Gore's being right about energy consumption explains why he can't follow his general advice.
Talisse- I haven't backed off anything I have said, thank you very much. I took that one statement as noted below at face value, and said I did not disagree, with that, per se.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never intimated there was absolutely nothing sensible or logical within the article. I didnt say I found your whole premise to be complete rubbish, I said I found the article to be hypocritical. My personal reasonings for that were obviously based on the examples given and the way they were treated, which line-of-reasoning applied to which character. The over-all impression it gave, me.
Again, I am speaking from the point of view more akin to that of a food critic, a consumer/customer. That you did in fact use flour, water, eggs, yeast and salt, is not why I gave you a lack-luster review.
SWR-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI parted ways with the churchkins long ago, and found a stronger Faith and a path towards deeper understanding as a result. No Pascal's Wager or Fire-and-Brimstone Evangelism leaflets here.
I disagree with you very much on Gore not being able to live more in-line with his own rhetoric. As I replied to Tom earlier, Walden Wood was 'greener', and produced a vastly superior product. In general, not Gore specifically, burning 60k gallons of jet fuel to go see a whale neither makes one an environmentalist nor bolsters their calls for reducing the impact of human activities.
Again, the [purely logical] points made by the authors do not elude or escape me.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou Write; '...Again, Haggard's fall may still be evidence for the view that virtue is fragile, and it is most certainly evidence for the bad consequences of vice, but it equally certainly undercuts the credence we should give to him to pronounce on these things...'
Agreed. Simply.
EB writes: Talisse- I haven't backed off anything I have said, thank you very much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse: So then you're willing to call the difference between your position and an "unadulterated Double-Think" what "gives NAMBLA a pass" simply a difference of "point-of-view" and of "personal values"? Hilarious! Add to the already long list of things you're ignorant of the following: to call a position "double-think" is to call it incoherent, that is, not really a case of thinking at all. Similarly, to say of a position that it "gives NAMBLA a pass" is to say of it that it's morally beyond the pale, not really a *moral* position at all.
I can see why you're so eager to backpedal: it has been shown, even to you, that you're out of your depth. So you're trying to save face, and play nice. But it's hard to get people to play nice with you after you've impugned the intellectual integrity of their work, called them liars, claimed they're in league with NAMBLA, and the other nonsense you've pulled. Face it: you're wrong, you've been wrong, and it has been shown that you're wrong. Trying to cover it up won't help.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not back-pedalling, nor being dishonest. I have moderated the tone, not the tune.
Me taking your own logical point(s) into that comparative hyperbole for you to turn-about and say outright that I "claimed they (you) are in league with NAMBLA" evinces your own susception to a defensive, over-reaching, pit bull mentality, not mine.
'Doublethink' has a working definition. It is to simultaneously hold two incompatible/antithetical ideas, and perceive no contradiction between them. (it is not the same as duplicity or anything overtly nefarious, it bespeaks an ideological condition) Like or don't like how & where I appiied it, I am not at all confused about what it is.
You will note, when you posted a comment that expressly denied personal support of Gore or any intentional bias against religion, I stopped strumming that particular chord. My 'problem(s)' with the article as-written, hasn't changed. It can be taken that way, and there are those who will take it that way. There are those who can, will and do use things like that to re-enforce their own and other's doublethink in support of Gore the individual and against religion.
Not your fault, not your problem, not your concern, fine, if you say so, Talisse.
In Christianity, it is agreed we are all sinners, no one is perfect. So, you're left with the idea that you try your best to not commit the worst sins and for those who have to repent and not commit them again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSatan says that Gore is a hypocrite if he pollutes even a little. But that's not the case. Gore doesn't ask people to reduce their pollution to zero, just to make major sacrifices in their lives to reduce it. So, he is completely capable of living by his words. But he's a rich guy, used to a life of luxury. He replaces his mansion's light bulbs with energy efficient ones and plants some trees and proclaims he is doing his part.
So, as far as Gore's hypocrisy goes, his message is for we ordinary people to make major sacrifices to protect the climate, but WON'T do so himself. If his message is so critical- if he believes we need to go to such lengths to change- then his hypocrisy calls into question just how critical it really is, it makes us wonder if his message is more about manipulating the population than to protect the climate.
If the article held all the examples to the same standard, one way or the other, I'd have had nothing to disagree with, but the fact that all the cases of hypocrisy are really equal. The whole truth of what any of them says can be called into question and/or each can be used as an example of the risks involved with the focus of their message.
EB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if the tune's the same, why are you moderating your tone? If your point is that our article could be misread to be unquestionably supportive of Gore's actions and anti-Christian, our only response is that people should read more carefully, especially the last paragraph.
Other contributors to this comment page have suggested that less controversial examples could have been chosen to get the point across. That was what smoker dad was supposed to do. The Gore case was then a further extension. We realized that it risked inciting the tinfoil hat brigade, but why (especially once the logical point has been made) should we be held hostage to them?
In effect, your main charge boils down to this: “Again, I am speaking from the point of view more akin to that of a food critic, a consumer/customer. That you did in fact use flour, water, eggs, yeast and salt, is not why I gave you a lack-luster review.”
So you misunderstood and were driven over the edge by the article, which is evidence that we must be very bad writers for a popular audience? But surely, even if you look at some of the other comments on this page (e.g., Lackey around 15, squish around 20) you should see that plenty of people got the point of the article and note how you not only miss it, but are discombobulated once you see the string of letters G-O-R-E. But we can’t be held hostage to your frailties, EB. Gore hypocrisy charges are so popular, we’d be remiss not to address them. Even in popular writing. Lucky for everybody, there’s a comment page where it all can come out in the wash.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Doublethink' has a working definition. It is to simultaneously hold two incompatible/antithetical ideas, and perceive no contradiction between them. (it is not the same as duplicity or anything overtly nefarious, it bespeaks an ideological condition) Like or don't like how & where I appiied it, I am not at all confused about what it is.
Response: Amazing how unwitting you are in confirming my point. If "doublethink" involves affirming a contradiction, then any instance of doublethink is an instance of no real thinking at all. So, there's no way to hold (coherently) that (1) the article is "unadulterated Double-Think" and (2) the difference between us is simply a matter of different "points-of-view" and difference "interpretation of data." For one who proffers doublethink has no point of view and offers no interpretation of data.
So, once again: dishonest backpedaling or just plain thickness. What'll it be?
Rogeregon writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the article held all the examples to the same standard, one way or the other, I'd have had nothing to disagree with, but the fact that all the cases of hypocrisy are really equal.
Response: Once again, you're wrong. Try reading the article.
If you guys tell me that "fire is cold and the moon is made of green cheese", but I disagree and you just keep saying to reread your words, I'll still believe that fire isn't cold and the moon isn't made of cheese.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour examples say that Gore's hypocrisy only confirm his words, while saying the preachers call his words into question. Why can't Gore's hypocrisy call his message into question? Again, if he says it's as critical as it is, but he can't make any major changes to his life, then couldn't we assume that perhaps he's lying about it being so critical?
Even though the preacher is being hypocritical, does that really call his teachings into question? Adultery and drug use destroy countless lives, mess up families, bring major unhappiness.
I just can't see how you can claim the hypocrisy of each is different, that one helps confirm their words, while the other has the opposite effect. The only reason you could see it that way is through a bias that makes you see Gore's message as clearly correct and the preacher's message as wrong, but in your article you shouldn't let your leftist values and bias color your conclusions, but treat each example free of those personal views.
Excuse the delay, was distracted reading about climate change being made 'a matter of National Security', and Obama's former Seat being sold by & to Obama's [now- former] friends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott-
The tinfoil hat brigade? Seriously. Its a derogatory stereo-type usually flung out at the 'fringes'. In case you haven't taken a good long look around lately, mainstream America & Pop Culture IS the bloody tin foil hat brigade.
In all fairness, as I tried to get across in my reply to Talisse; when you guys came out and said, point blank, that you do not and did not intend to sound like you were supporting Al Gore or being deragatory towards religion, thats when I moderated my tone. I am not entirely certain that I should have, which I will address below, but I did attempt to parley
Talisse- You are banaly amazing. Doublethink is not a cancelling out. Its not proton meeting anti-proton. Doublethink is on the lines of ; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Love is Hate,,,,,,,,,, Hypocrisy is Sincerety.
In any case, Nonsense back at you. (I've been waiting for this) Try reading your own bloody article. As Scott keeps saying; 'read the last paragraph'
To Wit; "...To skirt this danger, people should suppress their instinctual responses to accusations of duplicity so that they can focus on the real issues at hand. Such concentration is essential to our ability to rationally judge our leaders, colleagues and friends as well as to make decisions about IMPORTANT --->SOCIAL<--- ISSUES that affect our lives. [emphasis added]
Or, does that not apply, to you, the author? Do I rightly detect some _______ in your words? Is it supportive of your general argument, or should your entire teachings be called into question?
Rogeregon: so the question comes down to whether Gore's failure to heed his own advice is the same as the preacher's failure to heed his? I think Gore asks people to do what they can and are willing to do. I don't think he asks folks to stop flying altogether. To the extent he fails to do ALL he can do his hypocrisy does support his message, because there is always more one can do to reduce one's carbon footprint (including stopping breathing, not having children - i.e., adding more such footprints to the world, and not driving anywhere ever).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe preacher, on the other hand, can do enough to heed his own advice completely and utterly. He can stop seducing men with the real promise of hot, preacher-on-male-meth-whore tweaked out action. His inability to heed his own advice is not evidence of the truth of his advice. This is because when we believe something is wrong, we try not to do it. Gore can't help but breathe, and I wonder how many of us would chastise him for having children. The pipe and the caulk don't force themselves on Haggard.
Rogeregon- Methinks they've a vested interest now in denying even the slightest lapse in judgment or poor choice of words/examples.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDollars-to-doughnuts they are more careful to avoid similar 'confusion' henceforth. (Well, Scott at least. Talisse may run on spite indefinitely)
Rogeregon, you write, "I just can't see how you can claim the hypocrisy of each is different, that one helps confirm their words, while the other has the opposite effect"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut you're just repeating the charge. I'd answered the double standard charge twenty or so posts ago. It went like this: if Gore is right, then we have an explanation for why he's a hypocrite; if Haggard is right, we have no explanation for why he's a hypocrite. Consequently, Gore's hypocrisy is indirectly relevant to his case, and can be taken to support his case, if one takes those conclusions as correct.
That's why the two cases are different. They get different treatment because they are logically different, not because we've got a political slant. The inclusion of the Gore case, again, was important because Gore hypocrisy charges are rampant. We'd be remiss not to have a discussion of Gore.
Now, a little education about how to have a discussion. If you make an accusation, say of bias or double standards, you need to listen to what the person accused says in response. When that person is done, you need to resist the temptation to repeat the charge. You have to address their response to your charge. You may not understand their response. Maybe you can ask, then, for a clarification. You may disagree with a feature of their response, voice that disagreement. But please, for the love of Pete, don't just keep going with the accusation.
EB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to say that I have no idea what the point of your post that the last paragraph of the essay cuts against us means. Look, for the sake of argument, I'll give you the bias charge. So... even if the essay is the result of political bias, how does that make us hypocrites? Is selecting examples of a logical point (one, I think you see, right?) about hypocrisy that favor one's political views hypocritical? Only if our advice was not to gerrymander the politics in examples for logic. But that wasn't our advice.
Was the advice to suppress our aversion to people we judge as cheats? Yes, but, again, on the hypothesis that we're biased, we chose Haggard and Gore as our examples because we thought one was wrong and one was right, not because of our aversion to duplicity. We saw Haggard as duplicitous, again on the hypothesis that we're biased, because we thought he was wrong, not the other way around. So we didn't break with our advice, even *if we were biased* in selecting the examples.
The bottom line here is that you can't have it both ways: we can't be both biased and hypocritical in the way we use the examples. But maybe you meant something else by your comments, but sometimes it's really just hard to tell what you're doing.
EB, I think you're right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this: )
Satan, you're just being ridiculous. Gore IS NOT telling people to eliminate their carbon footprint, but to reduce it, so for you to keep talking about his having to stop breating and have absolutely no environmental impact to not be a hypocrite is far beyond any reason. If a person pushes others to make major sacrifices in their lives to reduce their carbon footprint, then that person should be doing the same, or else they are a hypocrite.
Now, if Gore were telling people they had to eliminate their carbon footprint to save the Earth, then he'd be a hypocrite if he continued to have even a tiny footprint.
Anyway, the preacher, like every human being will still sin, the question is whether it's the little sins or does he cross the line and commit adultery, commit murder or something else. The same with Gore. Does he mostly follow his own preaching or does he do just a little, what's convenient to him?
I have to admit, beside you, the authors bias is very, very tiny!
Scott,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we see it differently because you're thinking in the terms of Gore's message being true but the preacher's message not being true. Of course, that's your opinion. Gore's message isn't simply that our carbon footprint adds to climate change but that to save the planet we ordinary people all have to sacrifice in so many ways. But who's to say that all the sacrifices he calls for are necessary to that degree. If there's even some question about the whole truth of his message, then his hypocrisy can make people question that message.
Of course, if someone, due to their bias, takes everything Gore says, to be the 100% truth, then of course, they can say that his hypocrisy only reinforces his message. But I don't take it for 100% truth and his hypocrisy makes me question that message. And that goes against your conclusion in the article.
I still see the preacher's message against sin as being reinforced by his actions, as trying to reduce our sin is like trying to reduce our carbon footprint- we can't eliminate it completely, but we can try to reduce it a lot. The preacher failed completely in resisting sin, instead indulging in the worst of it, and Gore fails to resist living a life of excess, despite his preaching that we all need to make huge sacrifices. Both are allowing their desires to take over, despite their words. Both are doing things they tell others not to do. In fact, Gore continues to live an excessive lifestyle, while Haggard, though he disgusts me, has supposedly turned his back on his perversions, promising to live by the words he'd preached. I don't think he's truly changed inside- though I can't know for sure- but of the two, he's the one that seems to be trying the most to reverse his hypocrisy.
Give Pete my love!
:P
But there's a difference that's overlooked in your response, Rogeregon. Gore's case, if it is true, explains why Gore is hypocritical in the very specific way he is hypocritical. That is, if Gore is right, then people who live public lives will leave large carbon footprints, and will continue to leave them unless there are larger social changes. Haggard's case (as you've presented it as one about sin being unavoidable, which I don't think is actually right... but I'll address that shortly) does not explain why Haggard sins in the very specific way he sins. It certainly does not explain why Haggard's dalliance with male prostitutes and meth is unavoidable. These are significant differences between the cases, enough to treat one differently from the other. And note, it's not because I think one's case is true and the other isn't, because nothing about this difference requires that you see either view as true or false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, a point of contention about Haggard. The point of 'clean life' theology, as I understand it, is that one takes steps to overcome sin by making oneself worthy of grace. Now, here's, again, why I think Haggard's case gets undercut by his hypocrisy: if clean living is something that helps overcome sin, then Haggard should be a good exemplar of it. His failure to overcome sin, well, even if he's right, undercuts his authority to speak to it. It doesn't show that clean living theology is false, and you don't have to assume that it's false to see that Haggard's failures to live up to what he says as bearing on his credibility.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTalisse- You are banaly amazing. Doublethink is not a cancelling out. Its not proton meeting anti-proton. Doublethink is on the lines of ; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Love is Hate,,,,,,,,,, Hypocrisy is Sincerety.
Response: You're confused. My analysis of doublethink makes no use of the notion of "cancelling out" (whatever that is). It rather draws on the logical relation of contradiction, which is what all of your own examples of doublethink are. Given that one could validly derive *any* other proposition from a contradiction, and given that part of how we identify the significance of a given position is in terms of its implications, one who asserts a contradiction arguably has no position at all. So, again, you cannot consistently hold both that the article is "unadulterated doublethink" and that the difference between my view and yours is simply one of different "points of view" (for one who is engages in doublethink has no point of view). So if you hold the latter view, you're backpedaling (perhaps unwittingly, which would not surprise me), and if you hold the former you've been refuted. Choose.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDollars-to-doughnuts they are more careful to avoid similar 'confusion' henceforth. (Well, Scott at least. Talisse may run on spite indefinitely)
Response:
Interesting that you take it to be "spite" when someone takes the time to, and exercises great patience in, trying to teach you something, even after you've been so ungracious and intemperate.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour candor is duly noted, 'for the sake of argument'.
Your logic was never lost on me. You could have written what you did sans example, or with benign anonymous archetype, and I'd have little reservation in contemplating it.
Again, as I mentioned earlier but didnt flesh out, its the value of X or, rather, what 'Value' each individual ascribes to each 'X'. Where you place value or see no value is, and is going to be, different from the next guy, even when applying exactly the same logical principles. You aren't going to always reach the exact same conclusions on any given example, when any given variable is, by its very nature, subjective. You venture afield of your logical underpinning when you expect that all who agree with you in that principle will also agree with you on others.
In the Gore example, you obviously ascribe a value (high) to the issue of climate change. As do I. However, you are or appear to be dealing with the issue in generic terms. For you, perhaps/assuming, it boils down to the same 'idea' with the same obvious-to-you conclusions and solutions Gore proposed. Therein you come to see either no inherent conflict in his hypocrisy, a good enough rationalle to overlook it, or some form of tangential support for the larger issue.
Though we may agree, generically, about climate change, when we diverge in the details, we diverge in where the logic takes us. For instance, it is highly likely that what I may have grasped or been privvy to on that issue, and yes even about Gore himself, has been different. I may find just cause to point out and take issue with his [type of] hypocrisy. I may hold a different opinion on what can or should be done to combat, or deal with, climate change. You may think, for instance, spending the time and money retrofitting New Orleans to be more "green" is worthwhile and would be good for the Planet. I, on the other hand, may look at the science and sea level forecasts and say that the effort would be better expended on moving/removing the entire city to a viable location, or abandoning it altogether.
I may be on the fence, waiting for a better prediction. I may believe the ocean currents will slow and an Ice Age is forthcoming or that we should be getting ready to live in a hotter world. I may believe whatever will happen is already in motion and inevitable, and that Gore's cattle call is largely a waste of time and effort, or a diversion/roadmap for something else he's after..
We don't always share the same 'value' of 'X', irrespective of logic.
I don't mind so much that people CAN by carbon offsets but I do mind when we HAVE to buy carbon offsets or be punnished. With indulgences in the middle ages one was not obliged to buy 'em...the carbon offset tax is edging its way to making it mandatory, which undermines any effort to alleviate the need for it, because really, what financial manager taking care of the trillions of dollars of carbon offset, mandatory or otherwise, is going to say "oh hey! it looks like we're done with warming now so I'm going out of business..." ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd for all the tenuous observations connecting every conceivable calamity to CO2 (read that as "percieved western industrial excess") there are even more alternate ways to alleviate the CO2 problem, but all we ever hear is "carbon offsets"...why is that? I think we know why. The ruling elites (who in fact are beyond partisan politics and use it only as a method of controlling or framing the issue to their benefit) are quite sure that any financial system the size of this carbon offset program (some say it will be in the tens of trillions of dollars) will be handled by boards of directors and hand picked CFOs and other senior career money managers who come from the loins of the worlds richest country clubs.
What happened to the simple solution of painting all the roof of cities white? What about natural processes of sequestration? What about doing the science required to prove that this complex system of our climate is in fact the result of a straight line correlation between CO2 and temperature? Forget sea level rise, we need to fix our coastal infrastructure because the cities are sinking into their alluvial foundations and the biggest threat is going to be tsunamis from quakes, volcanoes and asteroid impacts. We have lots to think about and global warming should be on low on the list and not deflecting serious planners from looking at the real threats that could do serious damage to our society and ecosystems.
And since this started off as an examination of hypocracy with Al Gore as an example, I should state that I don't dislike Al Gore, but he is probably wrong on this, just as he was on picking Lieberman as his running mate. His notion of "the debate is over" is blatantly anti-scientific, because in science the debate is not over just because a political solution happens to be one that an arm of the leadership happens to think will work. Science is about questioning the presumed notions, not supporting ones we find gratifying.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mis-spoke earlier, I meant to say doublethink is not *merely* a cancellation. Its an ongoing thought process, with tangible personal and social effects.
For your edification; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI mis-spoke earlier, I meant to say doublethink is not *merely* a cancellation. Its an ongoing thought process, with tangible personal and social effects.
Response: You've missed the point again. My thesis, slowly so that you might understand, is that one who is engaged in doublethink has no perspective (or "point of view"). Here's why: for anything to count as a perspective, it must be possible to identify its entailments (*and* what it *does not* entail, including that which it entails the negation of). But since every instance of doublethink is an instance of embracing a contradiction, and since *any* proposition follows validly from a contradiction, it's impossible to identify any thesis which doublethink entails the falsity of. So one who engages in doublethink has no discernible perspective or "point of view." So, once again, you're wrong to think that you can consistently hold both that our article is "unadulterated doublethink" and that we differ only on "point of view." So, once again, either you're backpedaling or you're talking nonsense or both. Which is it?
EB, so are you saying that there is or is not a logical difference between Gore and Smoker Dad when you say: "You aren't going to always reach the exact same conclusions on any given example, when any given variable is, by its very nature, subjective. You venture afield of your logical underpinning when you expect that all who agree with you in that principle will also agree with you on others.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are saying there is a difference because of the values, I think you’re seriously mistaken. We can assess logical relations between propositions regardless of how we value them, whether they are true or not, whether they make us want to barf or yell yahoo, or whatever. Here are a few examples: E.g.#1: All Democrats are smart-alecks. Some smart alecks were abducted by aliens. Therefore, Some Democrats were abducted by aliens. Here, neither of the premises are true, and I don’t think the conclusion is true. I think it’s a silly syllogism. But it’s valid (which is a logical relation between propositions that runs: if one set is true (but it may in fact not be), then the other set is guaranteed to be true). E.g.#2: If Barry says that when he was abducted by aliens, they hypnotized him and conditioned him to eat chocolate cake, then if it’s true (or we have independent reason to believe) that aliens abducted Barry and so conditioned him, his eating chocolate cake would be further evidence that he was abducted and so conditioned. Here, the connection between the propositions: “Barry was abducted and conditioned” and “Barry eats cake” is one that we can assess even if we think that they are false, silly, or even a cover for Barry’s gluttonous lifestyle.
If you’re saying there is no difference between the Gore example and smoker dad, but that the values distort our ability to judge them, I’ll agree. In fact, that’s a point about bias we both agree on – namely, that it clouds our interpretations of what’s actually the case. But note now that we are writing to correct that, address it, give an example of when things go wrong that is common. We can’t have an essay that’s relevant unless it does that. Again, we don’t have to take a stand on whether or not Gore’s right, we just have to show how reference to his hypocrisy is hasty and perhaps overlooks a deeper connection.
Oops. In example #1, I screwed up my quantifiers -- please read the second premise as "All smart alecks were abducted by aliens." Otherwise, the syllogism's not valid. My bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere you have it, its 'your' thesis on doublethink. I am not pigeon-holed into 'your' either/or by way of it, except in 'your' mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisListen, you ARE biased. Everyone IS, I am. Its a plain fact that everyone judges, and those who claim they do not, are liars, simply. Survival demands it of us, we appeal to the judgment of others and others appeal to our own. Its virtually inescapable in any discipline but positively so where subjective reasoning and critical thought are concerned. Logic itself, the conscious application of it to a given situation or issue, that one form is better suited or superior to another, is a matter of judgment and evidence of judgment.
Your article is biased on many levels, and by sheer virtue of publication, it begs judgment. It makes an appeal to accept your logic and your hypothesis, upon the grounds YOU chose.
That a charge of bias was issued was not in-and-of-itself inflammatory, its a bloody given. That you believe your judment sound, your personal bias, is beside the point. That it all made/makes perfect sense to you I hardly bother to question.
I spoke to the particular bias you showed in your choice of examples, which you deny. Fine. However, I also spoke to the neat little generic packages your bias placed those particular examples into, which is beyond your ability to deny.
You are the one who wants me to accept your logic and then apply it in the real-world. Again, at face-value, your reasoning does not elude or repulse me, its mostly common sense if a bit on the inflective side.
Again though, you also demand that I accept your personal application of your logic to your chosen examples, as you give them and as you do, which are not reflective of the "real world" as I know it to be. Thats where we part ways, seemingly beyond reconciliation.
You can't seem to grasp that "I" would have to become intellectually dishonest to myself in order to digest the little nuggets you've rolled Gore and the environment, as well as Haggard and religion, into. "I" would have to engage in doublethink to reach your [biased] conclusions regarding your given 'real world' applications.
Now, the questions. Do I seperate the character (you) from the issue (your hypothesis)? Yes, did that before the first post. Do I accept the basic principles of your logic, or do the examples of your application cause me to reject the entire premise?
You tell me, Talisse. Can I take one without the other? Can you even allow for that? Which is most dear to you, the substance, or the surplusage?
Pick the one you fancy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.livescience.com/environment/081210-ap-climate-treaty.html
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
doug I has some very good points!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott, I do call into question parts of Gore's message. I do think that his hypocrisy calls into question whether he truly believes what he's saying, that if he truly thought that the situation is so critical that we all need to start making major sacrifices in our lives, then someone in his position, passing on that message would have far more incintive to make major changes in his lifestyle, to be a good example to get all of the rest of us to make those changes. I feel that his message doesn't explain his inability to change- I think he simply doesn't believe the hyperbole that he spews, that he doesn't really believe it's so critical, but rather he's adopted this political religion, seeing that as one its priests he can keep himself in the news, maintain power that he wouldn't have had by going to the Senate after his vice presidency.
Now, you and others might believe that his message is totally true and that it explains his hypocrisy. But is that fact, or just your opinion?
The same with Haggard. I see his message as saying that engaging in sin, besides going against God's word, is something that leads us to ruin our lives, that as hard as it is to resist temptation, we need to fight it, or else we'll find great unhappiness, which is exactly what happened to him when he did so. His example of hypocrisy only reinforces his message in the minds of many people. Of course, those who are anti-Christian will see it differently, saying that his giving in to temptation and being hypocritical proves the Christian message to be a lie.
So, it all comes down to bias- the opinion of the person looking at each situation, each hypocrite. You place Gore and Haggard's hypocrisy into two different categories, with your opinion that Gore's message is 100% true and thus supports his hypocrisy, showing that he can't help but be a hypocrite in the matter, while Haggard's doesn't do the same, yet I see it differently. We each have different opinions on the messages and how it relates to their hypocrisy.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe smoker dad is a simple archetype and the ills of smoking a largely settled issue. He is whatever you say he is for the sake of the argument and nothing more. We can by-and-large agree on his traits and his conditions, as well as the problems of smoking. The values being on par, we can look at that in the same logical pretext. Dad smokes, smoking is bad, dad doesnt want son to smoke, dads hypocrisy supports his position, etc.
However, it doesn't faithfully transmute with the real-world examples of Gore and climate change, and for me at least there is a natural and intellectual aversion to making such an apples-to-apples comparison.
One may pretend at it for the simple sake of argument. and in contemplation of your logic alone. Or, one may bow to your confidence, or your authority, in this or some later work that draws on it, and presume all the necessary homework has been done for them and that the two ARE, indeed, essentially the same.
Whether you meant to or not, the article presents it in the latter flavor, as a bona fide self-evident fact, when the truth is it all depends on the Gore example actually being ______, climate change being _______ , and the [best] path forward being ______. We are left with a trust-me-on-this Article of Faith there, with a 'pay no attention that man behind the curtain' reliance on people and things that are not bound to clear or constant delineation, even their own, as we see and as we learn.
I am not being mean or anything like that, simply trying to make a point.
Much the same with the syllogisms, which I do appreciate. There again, we are dealing with the same [clinical] deck of cards. Aliens ARE thus, Billy IS thus, and so on, no more and no less. The logical inferences are reliable, I could hardly argue with the demonstrable results. The real world is exponentially more complicated and subject to [many] changes without notice. We don't even KNOW all the variables, much less do we or can we ascribe them the same value. Imagine you lay the 'Billy' syllogism neatly out on the table to make a point, then look down to find a few cards had completely re-written themselves. Imagine if they did that, often. It would be more life-like, don't you think?
EB writes: There you have it, its 'your' thesis on doublethink. I am not pigeon-holed into 'your' either/or by way of it, except in 'your' mind. [...] Your article is biased on many levels, and by sheer virtue of publication, it begs judgment. It makes an appeal to accept your logic and your hypothesis, upon the grounds YOU chose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse: More foolishness. You overlook the fact that I provided an *argument* for the thesis. If you reject the thesis, attack the argument. Good luck with that-- you've already proven inept at argumentation, so I'm not expecting anything but more nonsense from you. More importantly: simply saying that you reject my thesis accomplishes nothing, since if the argument I provided for it is sound, you're simply wrong to reject it. And nothing in your post even addresses the argument, let alone challenges it.
And your appeal to the idea that there's a logic that's "mine" and another that's "yours" is infantile, and easily demonstrated to be so: What "logic" do you use to make the distinction between "my" and "your" logic? Once again, what drives the article and what's been driving my posts is logic, plain and simple-- the logic we're all committed to in virtue of the fact that we're thinking beings at all. Your retreat into relativist incoherence at the repeated demonstration of your ineptitude is really shameful, as is your equivocation on "bias." Apparently it is your latest view that *everyone* is biased. And yet you persist in claiming that to call another "biased" is to criticize him. Ha!
Rogeregon, you write: “I do call into question parts of Gore's message. . . . I feel that his message doesn't explain his inability to change- I think he simply doesn't believe the hyperbole that he spews, that he doesn't really believe it's so critical, but rather he's adopted this political religion, seeing that as one its priests he can keep himself in the news, maintain power that he wouldn't have had by going to the Senate after his vice presidency.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut note how this observation you make is different from smoker dad. You don’t have to *actually believe* that nicotine is addictive to see that if smoker dad is right that nicotine is addictive, it explains why he still smokes. The fact that we agree that nicotine is addictive is beside the point.
Now, when you say with Gore, “his message doesn’t explain his inability to change,” you then offer an alternative explanation. That’s not the issue here. The issue is that *if his message is correct* (and you don’t have to think it is), then we have an explanation for his behavior. You aren’t showing that Gore is different from smoker dad logically by saying that one’s explanation is true while the other’s is false. Logical relations are determined by assuming the truth of some propositions and finding out what other ones are supported. So to test Gore’s logic, you assume his premises are true and see if his conclusions follow. The point here is that his conclusions still follow from his premises, even if he’s a hypocrite… in fact, his hypocrisy counts as further indirect evidence if his premises are true.
But, again, that’s not to say his premises are true. And as a consequence, that’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of other explanations for why Gore fails to live up to his own advice. You’ve got plenty here, and I’ve got no special competence or interest to debate them. In fact, I think it’s more pressing to adjudge Gore’s case independently of his actions, precisely because of this logical feature.
Talisse- Typical hubris.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor one, 'your' thesis on what doublethink is or isn't is, frankly, ignorant. The term has already been coined, the definition set. May as well call your hypothesis on hypocrisy the Theory of General Relativity,,, oops, that one's already taken too,,,
Same with your juvenille assertions on 'logic' as if there are no other camps on what constitutes it and doesnt, and no other possible way for anything to be looked at and understood, but the one chosen by your own infallible intellect."... what drives the article and what's been driving my posts is logic, plain and simple-- the logic we're all committed to in virtue of the fact that we're thinking beings at all..." Ergo, everything you say, think, and write must therefore be the unreproachable truth.
Sad. Sadder still that much greater Intellects than your own refute you. Perhaps one day yours may join the hallowed ranks, alongside Syllogism, Predicate, Propositional, Modal, et al, there will be 'Talisse's Logic plain-and-simple'.
Really though, you can go browse around places such as; http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html (Hint; go to the letter "L")
You may find things crazy things in there like; "...A second discipline, also called ‘logic’, ( The first being mathematical/language) deals with certain valid inferences and good reasoning based on them. It does not, however, cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality. Rather it deals with inferences whose validity can be traced back to the formal features of the representations that are involved in that inference..."
There you go,,, gigo, in so many words. Logic may be reasonable, and yet still be utterly false.
You might peruse the "K" section as well, and look at the different forms and theories of Knowledge.
I think perhaps you are acting a bit out of your depth, as much as anyone.
Bias. My assertion that everyone is inherently and as a Rule inescapably biased, is not 'new' at all. It just the first time YOU have heard it, apparently. As stated, you used your own bias to choose your examples, to treat them as you did, to make the personal judgements on what value each has or has not, to decide which logical principle applies to what example, which allowed you to reach the 'logical' conclusions you did. In the end, you've tethered the validity of your logic to the certainty you place in the examples being no different than you have portrayed them, but your knowledge of them is merely a priori and subjective. A flawed epistemology
.
EB, you write: “The logical inferences are reliable, I could hardly argue with the demonstrable results. The real world is exponentially more complicated and subject to [many] changes without notice. We don't even KNOW all the variables, much less do we or can we ascribe them the same value.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, a clarification. If the logical inferences are reliable (which you admit), then they are reliable. Reliability in non-deductive systems doesn’t mean that you have guarantees, but it at least means that you’re more likely right than wrong. So the fact that they aren’t always right doesn’t mean that they aren’t reliable -- it just means that they aren’t always right.
Second, a point about logic, especially non-deductive and informal sorts. We start with small points and build out from there. Really, informal logic is a discipline that’s been in an extended state of infancy precisely because of difficulties with standard fallacy analysis. You probably saw that in a number of the comments earlier with people thinking that this essay was merely reminding everyone about TU QUOQUE fallacies (of course they are fallacies… but wait…). Precisely because the world is complicated, our notions of the fallacies need finer grain – that’s one thing the smoker dad case should show in spades, yes?
But here’s the problem. Your challenges get framed right (the world’s complicated, so you need to introduce more features to get the accurate scheme for the argument), but you don’t show what other features of the Gore case we’re leaving out. That there are other explanations for his hypocrisy is beside the point, that we come across as leftists is beside the point, that we treat Haggard as a moral incompetent is beside the point. What is it about the Gore case that makes it different from smoker dad so that the indirect relevance point can’t go through? That is what you have to answer.
Whenever it comes to Gore and Global Warming in SciAm the hairs on the back of my neck raise up. This magazine has already lost all scientific fairness or rationality on the issue, since it seems to be controlled by ideologues. Case in point is this article on "hypocrisy" whose only purpose seems to be to absolve Gore of his obvious infractions. It ends saying that Gore is merely "representing us" -- gee whiz, gimme a break. I think there are some moles working in the editorial department...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScott- You asked,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore complicated than that. Moreover, the question as to who bears such an onus. Its your theeory, after all.
The example, as I take it and take issue with it, is not simply a two-sided parallel between Gore and smoker dad, those are the examples of hypocrisy, yes, but to suggest the next logical inference you point to as to their hypocrisy bolstering their claims, is to also factor in the consistency or inconsistency between smoking and the ills associated with carbon usage/climate change, and/or frame the smoker's son as the logical equivalent to the public-at-large There, the analogy appears to fail on more than one level, in four-part or six-part.
Smoker dad presumably doesnt want to get hooked on nicotene. By Gore, we all already are and going to be hooked on carbon. One example is prevention, the other reduction. Smoker's son doesnt HAVE to start smoking. Beyond that, smoker dad's son has a different near-term cost-benefit analysis than we do, ie smoking is an expensive habit to pick up, whereas we are directed to take on greater hardships to reduce our carbon consumption through offsets and taxes. Incentive vs disincentive, and one that pinches us harder than it pinches Gore. Conversely to that, Smoker dad is very much feeling and dealing with the consequences of his habit, and will be. Logic says that smoker dad's habits will catch up to him, personally, no matter how much money he has. Offsets wont cure cancer. Gore, logically speaking, as long as he can afford it he doesnt actually have to ever live any differently, rather, given enough cash, he could conceivably increase his carbon footprint and hypocrisy exponentially, AND still retain the benefits of your hypothesis. There again, we can't seem to agree on the have-to's of it all. Smoker dad is addicted, Gore chooses to live beyond the mean as he does. I am not even going to tackle the logical differences between nicotene addiction and climate change here.
Those are just obvious distinctions, to my mind. Complexities increase. Gore's "in all fairness" tree planting offsets. What/where is that, exactly? Trees where there were no trees? Subsidizing the timber industry? Commercial varieties that will become assets for him later or indigenous species in natural proportions? Does he claim a [further] tax credit for it? Does he get a tax credit for his jet use and home expenses? How much is he really out?
The question really is whether you did all the homework for us when you assert that Smoker dad & Gore ARE indeed logically relevant.
Scott,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You don’t have to *actually believe* that nicotine is addictive to see that if smoker dad is right that nicotine is addictive, it explains why he still smokes. The fact that we agree that nicotine is addictive is beside the point. "
I can't really argue with that. IF Gore's conclusions are true, then like you say, his hypocrisy does highlight his views.
Thinking it over, I can see how your article makes sense, if we just take the examples as you claim them to be. If you'd made some generic examples, then there would have been nothing to argue over. However, by using examples from real life, with controversial subjects, it opens the door to questions of why one subject is treated in one way and the other in a different way.
As for Gore and the Smoker Dad, there was a time when people thought smoking was good- helped the digestion, etc. Now it's pretty much universally admitted that smoking is bad for your health and addictive, even die-hard smokers don't deny that, as the tobacco companies add ingredients that promote that addiction.
However, there are questions concerning how true Gore's message really is, whether major sacrifices by the average American are necessary or would even have a real effect. If Gore's message is false, in his mind, and he is only making it for political gain, then then his hypocrisy could point to his message being false and that he's not willing to live by his message because he don't believe it to be true.
So, even though I totally understand what your article is saying, and can see how it's possible for a person's hypocrisy to reinforce their message, I think it only counts in a situation where there is absolutely no question about the nature of the message. Gore's is mired in politics, not dispassionate science, so it leaves some to doubt it, and if they doubt his message, then his hypocrisy can't support the message.
That's where generic situations would have been good because you could create situations that were clear and did support your conclusions, without having any doubts.
Scott- That was in relation to the [clinical] logical inferences being reliable, in a more-or-less sterile setting. "If they are reliable they are realiable" only holds in all-things-being-equal scenarios. The greater the complexity and uncertainty, the less reliable such inferences, when you venture into areas like predictability within systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe a great deal of time, money and effort has been put into studying and trying to deduce the algorithms of human behavior en masse. I know its a hot commodity around Wall Street. Perhaps some of that research would be of interest to you in this.
Of course, anything that influences or stabilizes groupthink is presumably going to make predictions more reliable. You can't very well use the Delphi Method on the entire population to pronounce a consensus, but you can try to bend enough people to a given perspective, instill a pre-disposition, a bias if you will. People have been doing it and attempting to do it since time immemorial, and It is a Pandora's Box by its very nature, and the Nature of the subjects.
Scott- typo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthats; '...Smoker dad presumably doesnt want * son * to get hooked on nicotene...'
Rogeregon, I actually smiled when you said: “I can't really argue with that. IF Gore's conclusions are true, then like you say, his hypocrisy does highlight his views.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, then, unless you want to re-open the bias charges with Haggard, we don’t have anything else to argue about here.
EB, three things to respond to (in two posts)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1. You write: “the question as to who bears such an onus. Its your theory (sic), after all.”
But it’s your objection. If you say the two things are different after I’ve given an account as to why they are similar, it’s your job to provide the differences. If you just keep saying they’re different, I don’t know what to say to convince you that they’re the same.
2. Your four (six? Huh?) dis-analogies between the cases don’t cut against the relevant similarity in any way. You didn’t distinguish them, so I don’t know when one ends and the other begins, but I’ll try to address them in my own fashion. Here’s a schema of the dis-analogies I picked up from your posting, with smoker dad on L and Gore on R:
i. individual advice vs social advice
ii. prevention vs reduction
iii. suffering the consequences vs not
iv. addiction vs choice
Just to remind you what’s required for these dis-analogies to be relevant to our discussion is that they have to show how Gore’s hypocrisy doesn’t function as indirect support for his message in the way smoker dad’s does. That the cases are different in a lot of ways and that things are complicated, I’ll agree. But I don’t see why these differences make a difference for my case. With (i), that Gore’s advice is given to a group doesn’t make any difference at all. Change smoker dad in one little way: let him be addressing a crowd of teenagers. Or doing a public service message. Again, the fact that dad smokes and is addicted supports his claims, regardless of the size of his audience.
With (ii), first, who said that the son wasn’t already a smoker? Second, dad could very well weaken his advice from ‘don’t smoke’ to ‘smoke less.’ The same indirect relevance would still obtain.
With (iii) the fact that dad suffers (now or later) for his hypocrisy and Gore doesn’t is irrelevant to whether the hypocrisy can support the argument. Would it hurt the smoking dad’s case if he himself never suffered lung disease? Imagine the son saying: “but dad, not only do you smoke, but you’re fit as a fiddle!” Surely this is a sampling error or hasty generalization (we all have great aunts who smoked like chimneys and lived to 90, but that’s not a case against the dangers of smoking). Alternately, why does the fact that Gore doesn’t suffer from his hypocrisy mean that he’s wrong? Isn’t his point that living a certain kind of easy life does damage to the planet?
LOL! That's good Scott.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver the weekend I was baking a lot of Christmas cookies, so I had plenty of time, between waiting for batches to bake or for the cookie sheet to cool, to join in the debate but I'd say we've reached the end- plus I really hate the structure of the comment section here, especially as it builds up a lot of comments! It's too cumbersome!
With (iv) I think Gore might disagree, though it may stretch the term ‘addiction’ very thin. Nevertheless, even if it’s conceded that it’s a choice for Gore to do x or y, part of Gore’s message is that without a major overhaul of how we produce energy, our standard cultural choices do real damage to the environment, and as a consequence, we face a very hard choice individually between checking out of our culture and reducing our carbon footprint. Because we can’t expect people to unplug from society, we need largescale changes in energy policy for production. In the meantime, you’ll have people who want to produce less carbon dioxide without viable alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook, EB, the cases are supposed to share a certain structure, not be identical. Heck, given the mess of differences you put up, I half expected you to say that the most important one was that Gore doesn’t smoke!
#3. You write: “The question really is whether you did all the homework for us when you assert that Smoker dad & Gore ARE indeed logically relevant.”
EB, until you show that you can make a point that’s relevant, insightful, temperate, or spell checked, you absolutely must try to reign in your inclinations to insult the work of others.
EB writes: For one, 'your' thesis on what doublethink is or isn't is, frankly, ignorant. The term has already been coined, the definition set. May as well call your hypothesis on hypocrisy the Theory of General Relativity,,, oops, that one's already taken too,,,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResponse: Again, you're mistaken. Indeed, it may be hubris to treat you as someone who could be educated, but, once again, let me try to remedy your ignorance: The claim is that *your own* examples of doublethink (viz., the Orwellian ones) are examples of contradiction. And one who asserts a contradiction thereby fails to satisfy a necessary condition for having a "point of view." Or so I have argued. Now tell me what's wrong with the argument. And here's a hint: name-calling and providing links to Wikipedia and other online sources of variously reliable information does not constitute an argument. This is especially the case when you prove yourself unable to understand what's being asserted by those sources. Your interpretation of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry reveals your ignorance. To say that Mathematical Logic is a different discipline from Formal Logic is of course true; but that does not entail that the two areas of logic employ different standards of, say, validity. In fact, they don't: the mathematical logicians don't say that the formal logicians have "their logic"; they say that they are involved in a different investigation from the formal logicians *within* logic. More importantly, the logical concepts I've referred to in these posts are so rudimentary, that every branch of logic accepts them. But you're in no position to know that, since your command of the issues is limited to what you've gathered from reading (but, alas, not understanding) a few web-sources. If there's hubris in the vicinity, it's yours in thinking that you're in a position to treat me as a pupil in a subject about which I'm expert and you're not even an amateur.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate the time you've taken. As I said before I have no doubt you see what you see perfectly. Your article still 'reads' with some level of ambiguity towards that. There is still problem A Smoker Dad, which most any reader will take as a position that IS right, juxtaposed with problem B Gore framed as a logical correlation, yet the the entire premise rests on IF he is right.
There, the [clinical] Smoker Dad will remain inviolate. Gore and his platform, on the other hand, may or may not live up to the example, as time passes and more information comes to light. One is settled, one is a wild card.
EB, you are right here: "One is settled, one is a wild card." And as a consequence, it's important to treat the two cases similarly only in ways that don't depend on that difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe force and clarity of smoker dad is there, perhaps, because we think the issue about the dangers of smoking is settled. The logical features of the case obtain independently of that, though, and we can see it with another toy example from earlier: Barry the cake eater. He says aliens abducted him and conditioned him to eat too much cake. If we have independent reason to think that he'd been abducted and so conditioned, we'd have further reason to think so, because of his cake eating. Even if we, now with no evidence of abduction or conditioning, think Barry's story is merely a cover for gluttony, we can still see the logical point of the Barry case. So even if Barry the cake eater is a wild card (or even better, a low card, a losing card, because we think his claim is likely false and duplicitous), we can still see view his failure in behavior as indirectly and conditionally supporting his claims.
I think the same kind of reasoning could go through for someone exceedingly skeptical of Gore as a person -- even if you think the man's a duplicitous, elitist, manipulative, self-serving nincompoop (just like Barry the cake-glutton), you can still see that *if he's right* about social patterns of energy production and consumption, participating in our culture has unavoidable and unfortunate consequences. As a consequence, those who participate have a further obligation to reduce their production of carbon up front or on aggregate. Again, just like with Barry's cake eating, Gore's hypocrisy doesn't independently support his claims, but it does add support if his claims are true.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk,
",,, one who asserts a contradiction thereby fails to satisfy a necessary condition for having a "point of view." Or so I have argued. Now tell me what's wrong with the argument.,,"
You are thinking inside that clinical box. Taking the subject in micro and deducing a simple answer. Subject has no point of view. Problem solved. Next.
Now, change your resolution, pan out. The problem is far more insidious and pervasive. The subject is a human, many humans, that live and breathe and make decisions and act within and upon the society-at-large. The same one YOU live in. They vote, they shop, they attend university, join mobs, they become politicians, pundits, preachers, actors, teachers, civil servants, criminals, generals, dictators, readers. friends, enemies and family.
Doublethink isnt a simple cancelling out, Ergo, end of story. Not by any stretch of the imagination. There are Effects, that reach ALL of us, yourself included. Thats whats "wrong" with your argument. Not the voracity of the logic per se, but the apparent scope of your understanding. The real world as it is and operates.
Now, really you've little clue what I do or do not understand or where & how I get information. I linked to Stanford's Philosophical out of convenience and its adequacy for making the point. That being, there are many logical disciplines, if you will, under the "Formal" penumbra which come at problems from different angles and lead to different results, there are also areas that are known to be gray and that are as-yet unsettled within the Community (same as with Knowledge). That as opposed to your blanket 'there is only logic plain-and-simple'. That you chaffe when 'one such as I' reminds you is understandable, and telling. Your own Peers say as much. Regardless, I didnt merely point to Mathmatical Logic and say 'Ha!", and you bloody well know it. Your attempt to paint it that way speaks against you, not me.
Back to your Peers and your own area of expertise. I didn't mis-read or misunderstand anything, nor did I simply 'happen upon it' as you suggest. I simply cited a source you'd find hard to lambast on simple authoritative grounds. Logic alone (pure-and-simple) does NOT cover good reasoning as a whole. That is the job of the theory of rationality.
We do not live by logic alone. Not every real-world problem we face has a purely logical underpinning or purely logical solution. (I've been married to a redhead for 18 years. I can attest to this.)
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are thinking inside that clinical box. Taking the subject in micro and deducing a simple answer. Subject has no point of view. Problem solved. Next.
Now, change your resolution, pan out. The problem is far more insidious and pervasive. The subject is a human, many humans, that live and breathe and make decisions and act within and upon the society-at-large. The same one YOU live in. They vote, they shop, they attend university, join mobs, they become politicians, pundits, preachers, actors, teachers, civil servants, criminals, generals, dictators, readers. friends, enemies and family.
Doublethink isnt a simple cancelling out, Ergo, end of story. Not by any stretch of the imagination. There are Effects, that reach ALL of us, yourself included. Thats whats "wrong" with your argument. Not the voracity of the logic per se, but the apparent scope of your understanding. The real world as it is and operates.
Response: Unsurprisingly, all of this is irrelevant to the argument which you're called upon to challenge. I see you're still using "cancelling out" as a description of my analysis of doublethink. I'm not sure what kind of relation "cancelling out" is. But it's not contradiction, which is what all of your own cited instances of doublethink are instances of. That is, what makes "War is peace" an instance of doublethink is that it's a thinly disguised instantiation of the proposition "War is not-war." That's a contradiction. That's why Big Brother needs doublethink-- once one asserts a contradiction, one can derive any other proposition validly. Oh... and let me add that that's not a component of "my" logic; that's a component of logic-- plain and simple. It's indeed a necessary condition for something's being a "point of view" *in the way you require* (in your previous post) that it be possible for two points of view to be different (and opposed); therefore, someone engaged in doublethink does not have a point of view. So, in asserting that our differences are differences in "point of view" you've either backpedaled on your claim that the article is "unadulterated doublethink" or are contradicting yourself. QED.
The argument I've just sketched is valid. So, if you reject the conclusion, challenge the truth of one of the premises. No amount of name-calling or link-citing, or your other nonsense about the "scope of my understanding" will do. Say something about why a premise is false. Otherwise, be an adult and accept that you've contradicted yourself and must now revise.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh well, you asked for what was 'wrong' with... now for what is 'false' about. Two different questions, two different concepts, yes professor?
I use the term 'cancelling out' in the way you frame your hypothesis. Two contradictory points of view operate to cancel each other out, ergo, they must equal no point of view at all. A simple double-negative or oxymoron type of logical fallicy. How else do you reach that end from that beginning?
I see the concept of Doublethink differently. The contradictions don't equal nothing, they are embraced simultaneously and acted upon as if there is no contradiction. Together, they don't equal no point of view, but rather form a tangible third ideological entity, that Big Brother uses to its advantage.
A blank slate no-point-of-view would be something that any proposition could [then] be inserted into, but not indefinitely and not without limit. Big Brother needs a different type ideological vessel altogether. One that assimilates endless contradictions effortlessly, and endlessly. One that, at any given moment, [actually] holds and exhibits whatever point of view Big Brother requires. Simply having no point of view at all, doesn't serve Big Brother's purposes, its not whats going on there.
Its not logic, or a simple failure/abuse of logic, or the absence OF logic, but an [operative] illogic. Its not an 'it is this OR it is that' pattern that requires logical/rational decision-making based on knowledge and experience. Rather its an 'It IS this, it IS that, it IS something else, It IS this (again)' ad infinitum, that disregards its own pattern. There isn't a 'no/wait/rather' between instances. No logical triggers for the change or residual imprint from the prior position. Nothing changes in actual reality that precipitates the [new] view-point, only the statement from Authority that changes,,, reality.
Do you see what I am saying?
Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, he did have sex, what happened was not sex. Is means this, Is means that, there are WMDs, there are no WMDs, the war is over, the war is not over, there is a budget surplus, there is no budget surplus, we do not torture, we do torture, it is not torture.
(cont)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo add, in case this is, in part, where we are missing one another:
In Doublethink, contradictions aren't cut-and-dry. The subject takes the new proposition whole-cloth, but still operate in the world business-as-usual. A person holds many point-of view on a great many subjects. Where 'embracing a contradiction' really comes into its own, are in the myriad applications. Doublethink bypasses the in-depth re-evaluation of every other consideration, every [then inherent] contradiction, based upon whatever the Official [new] "Truth" happens to be. It all stays neatly compartmentalized.
Public school Teacher- (Monday)... "We teach you the facts and the truth, what makes good sense and what is fair, what you need to know to compete, and to become a responsible citizen. You can always trust us to take care of you, because it is our job)" ... (Tuesday) ... Edward, you are being suspended for three days becuase you were involved in a fight. It doesnt matter that Billy attacked you & broke your nose for no reason at all or he gets to go have a soda & watch TV in the Lounge instead of being in trouble (because he is on the 504 Plan and you are not)...(Thursday) ..."Myths and legends are just stories people told to explain what they couldn't understand or to make a point about something real using a metaphor that no one could take seriously."... (Friday)... "Class, I want you to write down everything you wish for Santa to bring you this Christmas",,, "Now sing along, Frosty the snowman, was a happy jolly Soul,,,"
It starts early.
Example revision- (Monday)... "We teach you the facts and the truth, what makes good sense and what is fair, what you need to know to compete, and to become a responsible citizen. You can always trust us to take care of you, because it is our job. **you are all equal here*** " ... (Tuesday) ... Edward, you are being suspended for three days becuase you were involved in a fight. It doesnt matter that Billy attacked you & broke your nose for no reason at all or ** that ***he gets to go have a soda & watch TV in the Lounge instead of being in trouble (because he is on the 504 Plan and you are not)...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh well, you asked for what was 'wrong' with... now for what is 'false' about. Two different questions, two different concepts, yes professor?
Response:
Wrong once again. Of course the concepts are different. But since the argument is valid, the only way to show that there's something *wrong* with it (viz., the only way to reject the conclusion) is to show that one of the premises is false.
Seriously, this is a point of baby logic. It's what anyone learns on day one of any course in formal argumentation. That you don't even know this much goes a good deal towards explaining the dismal quality of nearly all of your posts, which consist of nothing much beyond name-calling, ungrounded assertion, and errors of rudimentary reasoning.
EB writes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI use the term 'cancelling out' in the way you frame your hypothesis. Two contradictory points of view operate to cancel each other out, ergo, they must equal no point of view at all. A simple double-negative or oxymoron type of logical fallicy. How else do you reach that end from that beginning?
Response:
Once more... slowly so that you might follow.... Why don't you instead respond to my actual claims rather than your own preferred way of "framing [my] hypothesis"? "Cancelling out" is a useless notion, since what we're talking about is the formal relation of contradiction. "War is peace" involves no "cancelling out," it is rather an instance of a logical falsehood (i.e., "Both p and not-p"). On a proper understanding of Orwell's use of the concept of double-think, it is a central instrument of Big Brother's oppression precisely because it involves the assertion of contradiction; as a matter of logic, *any* proposition is validly entailed by a contradiction. So, the Party can show that their position, whatever it happens to be today, follows deductively from what citizens already believe. This has nothing to do with oxymorons or double-negatives or even fallacies. From any sentence that instantiates double-think, *any other* proposition deductively (viz., validly, non-fallaciously) follows. And *that's* why those who assert double-think can have no "point of view"-- for what it is to have a "point of view" (on *your own* account!) is to hold a view that can be assessed as different from and opposed to other points of view. But one who engages in double-think can disagree with no one, and therefore has no point of view. So, your contradict yourself when you assert both that the article is "unadulterated double-think" and that the difference between us is one of "point of view," for if my view is indeed double-think, it is not a point of view, and therefore the difference between us cannot be one of different points of view. So either you've backpedaled or you're contradicting yourself. QED.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can all pick cherries.
I offered an opposing hypothesis on what doublethink is and why. I hold that it isn't a [simple] state of 'having no point of view' as your hypothesis holds.
Surely you are intelligent enough to get past the confirmation bias & condescension defense mechanism and weigh it.
The very nature of Doublethink positively requires the subject exhibit a conscious, functioning point of view, and for all intents and purposes it must BE [genuinely] their own. (NOTE: The Party supplies the necessary opposing viewpoints by way of the subject's counterparts in Eastasia/Eurasia and in villification of certain individuals.)
However you get there, at bare minimum you must get,,, there. Otherwise, you've either fallen short or ventured afield. You may be legitimately describing 'something', but its not the concept of Doublethink. Something evident in duckspeak perhaps, but that is an overt act, not the thought process itself.
You've missed an obvious mark. By your reasoning, the contradiction only serves to provide an interstice for the new/next proposition to be introduced, one that deductively follows from what the subject already believes <-- FLAG, but then the cognitive dissonance presumably evaporates. It all suddenly [deductively] 'makes sense'. There, you've provided a way to escape your own logical conclusion, moments of comparative lucidity for the subject to hold a valid point of view, even hold persistent [valid] viewpoints, which you claim is impossible.
Aside from that, you've solved one problem but invented more logical hurdles by way of it. Instead of a seamless, perpetual condition, the Party must now bring the subject BACK to a dissonant state, as you propose it, by way of [another direct] contradiction, to continue. Or, the Party is limited to line-of-sight pendulum swings on any given matter. It works within dichotomy such as 'War is Peace', but breaks down quickly when complexity and most importantly when novelty is introduced, as it must be, such as revising/inventing entire pieces of history.
One CAN engage in doublethink AND have a point of view. One then can and does disagree with the 'enemy' (the 'necessary' balance), whomever or whatever the Authority identifies as such, anything that opposes the point of view the subject holds.
Your hypothesis is insufficient, prima facie, ergo, it is false, your argument is invalid. But, you know that already, don't you?
EB: You've asserted a good many things in these posts, but have argued for none of them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou assert: "One CAN engage in doublethink AND have a point of view." This is true only if you backpedal off your earlier conception of what a point of view is. Recall that earlier, you claimed that your POV is different from mind, and that this difference accounts for our disagreement. So you're committed to the view that POVa and POVb can stand in various logical relations to each other (difference, inconsistency, contradiction, equivalence, and so on). But since instances of double-think have the logical feature of being consistent with *every other* position, it makes no sense to say that someone who is engaged in (your words) "unadulterated double-think" has a POV that's different from (or in opposition to ) your own. It's really that simple. Try to grasp it this time.
You also write: "Your hypothesis is insufficient, prima facie, ergo, it is false, your argument is invalid. But, you know that already, don't you?"
And this is only more nonsense. Let me try to teach you some baby logic: An inference is valid when the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises (whether or not the premises are indeed true). From this it is evident that valid arguments can have false premises. So you're simply wrong to say that if my "hypothesis" (do you mean "premise"?) is false, my argument is invalid. Of course, validity is only one condition that must be met for a formal inference to succeed. The other is what is called soundness. A sound inference is a valid one which proceeds for premises that are indeed true. So, since the argument I provided a few posts down is demonstrably valid, the only way to resist the conclusion without contradiction is to deny the truth of at least one premise. Thus far, you've done nothing that even approaches this. You've simply made assertions, engaged in name-calling, provided links to internet sources which you do not understand, and repeatedly failed to address the issue at hand.
I'm almost to the point where I will have to conclude that I've wasted enough of my time trying to teach you. So, why don't you do a little thinking before composing your next response?
What I just wrote is just too long to condense, so if you'll pardon me, I will now post a multi-part comment.-- Tom Buckner
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo... I was thinking about all this mess the other day, and how many factors I think are left out. It occurs to me that we can represent each case of (alleged) hypocrisy as a string of Boolean quantities (which is like Twenty Questions, where you can define a specific thing by answering enough yes/no questions about it.) Hypocrisy is not one thing, but a system with at least two moving parts. I intend to argue that there are others.
Still problematic, since there are factors that are hard to assign. Some things split three ways, for instance. But that only forces us to add an extra question. More problematical is whether people answer honestly or not. Still, let me show what I mean.
Let there be a zero where the answer to the question This statement is true is No. Let there be a 1 where the answer is Yes. I'm trying to be complete and ask every question I think relevant. The first two statements are the moving parts everyone agrees exist.
Hypocrisy as everyone understands it: 2 variables
1.The accused hypocrite advocates value x? Yes
2.The accused hypocrite behaves in a way incongruent with value x? Yes
Much of the present debate dances around this basic model as debaters play peek-a-boo around other, invisible factors. Let's make them more visible.
A)The accused hypocrite advocates value X? Yes/No
B)The accused hypocrite agrees that value X mandates behavior Y? Yes/No
C)The accused hypocrite violates behavior Y? Yes/No
D)The accused hypocrite is truthful in answering all questions? Yes/No
E)The accuser advocates value X? Yes/No
F)The accuser advocates behavior Y while rejecting value X? Yes/No
G) The accuser agrees that Value X mandates behavior Y? Yes/No
H)The accuser performs behavior Y? Yes/No
I)The accuser can reasonably expect accused to make behavior conform? Yes/No
J)The accuser is truthful in answering all questions? Yes/No
Now let's see where this gets us. First off: I have included the accuser in the analysis. Some accusations are made in bad faith against essentially innocent people. We can't get at the truth unless there's a metric for that! Second: unless we have everyone hooked up to polygraph machines, we can't always know what both players are really thinking. A real hypocrite can be accused by an accuser with ulterior motives. Again, bring in a metric. Now, adding up the Boolean values, it looks to me like I have 512 possible combinations; less, if some combinations prove logically impossible. More if we add other Booleans such as
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone's on a lie detector? Yes/No
We can't actually get very many politicians and op-ed writes on polygraphs, sadly. Even assuming such machines were infallible... Also, I am attempting to account for situations where hidden motives exist, or where someone does the behavior for reasons not covered under the stated value. For example, some of us avoid gay liaisons because of religion, others because it's just not to our taste. Also, accusers can be one person (attitudes easy to assign) or many (we are forced to generalize about their sentiment, but there is usually some consistency depending on the groups involved).
Now let's run the cases.
Dad: Advocates non-smoking? Yes
Dad: Agrees that his advocacy mandates not smoking? Yes
Dad: Smokes? Yes.
Dad: is truthful? Let's assume yes.
Son: Advocates non-smoking? Not clear.
Son: Agrees non-smoking advocacy mandates not smoking? Yes
Son: Advocates not smoking while rejecting father's argument against smoking? Not clear
Son: Performs non-smoking? Not clear.
Son: Can reasonably expect father to either quit advocacy or smoking? Ah, there's the rub.
Son: Is truthful? Assume yes.
This is a classic he-said, he-said. For one thing, we don't know whether the son wants him to shut up, stop smoking, or let him smoke too. For another thing, we don't know which behavior the son practices. If we assume Yes to every question we can't answer, however, we have a binary number value for this one:
1111111111
That Yes in the second-to-last position (position I) would make the father a hypocrite, since he could make his behavior conform, either by abstaining from advocacy or abstaining from smoking. As I noted before, however, cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin. We should assign that answer No, giving us
1111111101
That Yes in the second-to-last position (position I) would make the father a hypocrite, since he could make his behavior conform, either by abstaining from advocacy or abstaining from smoking. As I noted before, however, cigarettes are harder to quit than heroin. We should assign that answer No, giving us
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1111111101
And we will know in future that any 1111111101 result means that the accused is a hypocrite whose hypocrisy supports his advocacy because of this reasonable expectation trap.
Next come the morals violators.
Bennett: Advocates not gambling? Actually, no. He advocates “Discipline.”
Bennett: Agrees that his advocacy (Discipline) mandates not gambling? No: he says it mandates not gambling “excessively.”
Bennett: Gambles? Yes. May have lost millions. Claims to have (mostly) cut back.
Bennett: Is truthful? In this area, it appears so.
Accusers: Advocate not gambling? Since this refers to a large class of people, generally no.
Accusers: Agree that his advocacy mandates not gambling? In this case, this is the crux. Yes.
Accusers: Advocate not gambling while rejecting Bennett's (basically religious) rationale? Wash.
Accusers: Perform non-gambling themselves? No.
Accusers: Can reasonably expect Bennett to conform his advocacy/behavior? Yes; he says he already did.
Accusers: Are truthful? Mostly yes.
We have some real ambiguity problems here, and Bennett manages to dodge the bullet. His accusers, we can see, tried to hold him to a standard he seems never to have explicitly married himself to, concerning a subject where most people have mixed attitudes anyway. Heck, state governments run lotteries. But, let's assign numbers: this case gives us
001101n011
That seventh data point (G) couldn't be determined because Bennett's accusers must include a mix of religious and irreligious, gamblers and not. The sixth is a problem because it conflicts with A and B. They can't all be true in this case, and we have to conclude the accusers failed because Bennett could claim he did not advocate the particular belief he was flouting. A zero in at least one of the first three positions (A,B,C) means Bennett is not a hypocrite under this analysis, unless we could prove he was lying (a zero in position D). One may feel he's violating the spirit of the hypocrisy law, but he stayed within the letter.
Pastor Haggard and Governor Spitzer both meet the criterion for old-fashioned Biblical hypocrisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo save space, I'll not show all my reasoning, but here's the Boolean string I get for each:
Haggard: 111001011
Haggard initially lied about what he was doing. Intentional lying, it seems to me, is an essential ingredient of hypocrisy. In any case, the first three questions get Yes.
Spitzer: 111n11n11
Spitzer was certainly hypocritical. He confessed much more quickly than Haggard, but only when caught. Also, his accusers are not necessarily innocent themselves. Many politicians use prostitutes; and let me add that his exposure may have been a riposte from Wall Street enemies. If only he could behave himself...
Now we come to Gore. We soon run into serious ambiguities. What EXACTLY does Gore advocate? How EXACTLY does he violate his own advocacy? Consider this comment from one of his myriad foes:
“ On January 27th, 2000, Gore campaigned in New Hampshire. That evening he left New Hampshire and flew back to Washington. The flight for ONE person emitted more than 22,000 pounds of CO2.
In those 2 hours Al Gore emitted MORE Carbon than 2 normal adults in the US in 1 full year. There were commercial flights available that were ALREADY going to make the trip.”
Source: http://www.oilnow.info/Gore.html
The author of this piece evidently thinks Gore, a sitting Vice President with a Secret Service escort, running for office as the apparent successor to the President, should have got in line at the ticket counter like the rest of us.
The other important line of attack is on his house, which is a 20-room, older place with a guest house. It used about as much energy as 20 average houses. This did look bad for Gore, but these reports were almost a year old. So I googled stories within the last month and found he's renovated it:
""Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design." - Source: http://current.com/items/88790251/gore_completes_renovations_to_tenn_home.htm
It does use a lot of juice, but the figure per square foot isn't bad, he runs two business out of the space, has many guests, purchases offsets, and pays extra for cleaner power. And just rebuilt the place.
So here's my Boolean for Gore, bearing in mind that some would assign different values to various questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGore: Advocates minimizing carbon footprint? Yes.
Gore: Agrees his advocacy mandates altering one's lifestyle to live less wastefully? Yes.
Gore: Has behaved in a way that flouts his advocacy? I assert No.
Gore: Is truthful? Yes.
Accusers: Advocate minimizing carbon footprint? No.
Accusers: Agree that his advocacy mandates minimizing his carbon footprint? Yes.
Accusers: Advocate reducing carbon footprint while rejecting his reasons? No
Accusers: Perform carbon-footprint reduction themselves? No.
Accusers: Can reasonably expect Gore to conform to his advocacy? No: they deliberately move the goalposts beyond reason for the circumstances, as demonstrated by the flight example I supplied.
Accusers: Are truthful? Since this is a group whose most familiar faces include Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, the answer must be No. They have assiduously spread untruths about Mr. Gore and too many other subjects to catalog.
So the Boolean for Al Gore that I get is
110101000
If we believe his foes, the third answer is Yes, and he is an obvious hypocrite. However, the answers to questions 6 and 10 are not very hard to answer in the negative. The accusers do not believe in, or follow, his advocacy, but wish to hold him to a stern interpretation of it. Question 8 is intended to explore whether an accuser follows the behavior for some other reason; I think I need to add a question or two in this area, to account for ulterior motives. Gore's accusers only pretend to be exercised by his alleged hypocrisy; it's really his advocacy that bothers them. His accusers, of course, will dispute at least four of my answers. I don't care if they do; I consider this a classic bad-faith accusation.
Let's run a few other cases, to see how this model dissects them:
Accusation: The Pope doesn't live in Christ-like poverty, so he is a hypocrite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPope: Advocates vows of poverty? Yes BUT: doesn't expect it of everyone.
Pope: Agrees his advocacy of such vows mandates living in poverty? No; praises but doesn't command it.
I think you can see where this heads. Since asceticism is considered virtuous but not mandatory among Catholics, a strict definition of hypocrisy can't be applied.
Accusation: Rush Limbaugh said drug addicts should be given long prison sentences, but then he became a drug addict, so he is a hypocrite.
Under this formulation, he comes in not so differently than the Smoking Father. But change the accusation a little:
Accusation: Rush Limbaugh demanded long prison sentences for drug abusers, but when he was caught illegally buying Oxycontin for his addiction, he strenuously avoided prison, and is therefore a hypocrite.
As far as I am aware, Rush still wants every other drug addict to go to stir. Definitely a hypocrite. His accusers in many cases do not agree with his advocacy of Draconian punishment, and no doubt many use illegal drugs too; but they tend not to lie about it. A good-faith accusation.
Accusation: Bill Clinton cheated on his wife in the Oval Office, despite passing himself off as a good family man, and lied about it, and is therefore a hypocrite.
An intersting case: this is all true enough, but most of his key foes were guilty of the same behaviors, and pursued him for other reasons altogether. One can be a hypocrite, it would seem, and also be accused in bad faith!
(End of very long multi-part comment)
"Are truthful? Since this is a group whose most familiar faces include Matt Drudge, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh, the answer must be No. They have assiduously spread untruths about Mr. Gore and too many other subjects to catalog."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell Tom, it's obvious you are not full of bias and a staunch defender of the left while bashing the right. So we must assume all your observations are true.
Talisse -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... Recall that earlier, you claimed that your POV is different from mind, and that this difference accounts for our disagreement. So you're committed to the view that POVa and POVb can stand in various logical relations to each other (difference, inconsistency, contradiction, equivalence, and so on)..."
Yes. (now slowly, that you may grasp) Insofar as concerns those items where we DO in fact disagree, and where that disagreement is in relation to our disparate points of view. No more, no less.
"... But since instances of double-think have the logical feature of being consistent with *every other* position, it makes no sense to say that someone who is engaged in (your words) "unadulterated double-think" has a POV that's different from (or in opposition to ) your own..."
No. Your hypothesis regarding doublethink is not accurate. It holds some water, but only within arbitrary constraints. It does not account for the given parameters and attributes of the concept under consideration, or even address its difficulties in doing so. Again, however you get there, you must get,,, there.
"...some baby logic: An inference is valid when the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises (whether or not the premises are indeed true). From this it is evident that valid arguments can have false premises..." Precisely. A is true therefore B must follow, is a different animal than; IF A were true then B would follow. Those pesky qualifiers, yes?
Really, I don't see this logical chess-game as rational discourse. In any case, you've opened that door so no sympathy for what issues forth. You, of all people, can hardly discount the validity anyone else's conclusions and inferences if they follow from whatever premises they utilize. You can only accept or reject their position on the truth or falsehood of that premise.
Thats the Achilles Heel. Here, and with your Hypocrisy Hypothesis.
Certainty.
In the clinical/generic examples your logic holds water. In the real world with real people and real, unsettled issues. It all depends on the qualifier, "If". Every real-world application of your hypothesis is at best a de novo dice roll, verifiable only in hindsight. It [logically] prompts a confirmational & statistical bias that if anything increases our chances of buying snake oil from a huckster, while positively feeding cognitive dissonance by circumventing our evolved survival instincts & social skills. It is less useful to us than our inate aversion to hypocrisy/duplicity/contradiction.
Tom-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for the obvious time and effort you put into all that. It is helpful, in my opinion, as much as anything can be, yes?
rogeregon-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBear in mind that those guys are the extreme end of paid pundits. Its their job to consistently articulate a particular view-point is if it were their own. Left or Right is part of their 'gimmick', and you will find them on both sides. Think of them more as entertainers, like [political] carnival barkers and pro-wrestlers.
Rush,,, is also an entertainer (by his own admission), but he goes beyond the pale with it. Most of what he puts out is hogwash, but its what his core-audience wants to hear & the fevered way they want to hear it. That he is a hypocrite is beyond question. When he's proven wrong, over and over and over, the man doesn't skip a beat. Duckspeak and Doublethink incarnate.
Talisse and Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHypothesis:
*IF* example Hypocrite G is correct in his position on Issue C, his hypocrisy supports his position and so [we probably] should listen to him.
(Note: Reasonableness and rationality of the level of hypocrisy in relation to the issue aside)
Test:
*IF* [it eventually turns out that] example Hypocrite G *was* correct in his position on Issue C, *then* we can deduce that his hypocrisy *was* supportive of his position, and *then* determine whether he *should have* listened to, or not.
Proof:
Not yet available.
Disclaimer:
Use at your own risk. Results may vary
Now, if you guys were to, say, do a fair historical sampling on hypocrites vs. their issues, (that fit your hypocrisy-appears/appeared-supportive criteria) where all the relevant factors have been unambiguously established and are verifiable, You might be able to produce enough quantitative data to show that your hypothesis has a lower rate of error than gut instinct, for instance. Or that your hypothesis holds some distinct advantage over ubiquitous social norms and common sense. Perhaps you will discover something that is practical & predictable in forward-looking situations or otherwise might be of [novel and positive] benefit and guidance to others, and not simply another questionably useful logical textbook exercise or parlor trick, or some slippery way to look at hypocrisy as not-hypocrisy.
(I do suppose that existing religion(s) per se would be a tricky subject for that type of research as thats a work-in-progress, but perhaps ad hoc claims like " The Earth will end on Tuesday" or examples from 'dead religions' would be acceptable)
Ah, one last thing: yes, a conservative will think I am terribly biased against conservatives. But in my youth (thirty years ago) I was very conservative. I read Reader's Digest cover to cover and believed every word. (Did you know it's a conservative propaganda magazine? It is. Really. Thirty harmless articles and four or five blatant propaganda pieces mixed in. Do the test: go through a few issues and see if you can find a kind word about unions or an unkind word about Reagan, for instance. But they never tell you their agenda. You're soaking in it. But I digress.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint is, I gradually concluded almost nothing the conservatives told me was the truth. Nowadays I assume they are being deceitful and that the details wll emerge later. And this is almost always so. Why do they lie so much? In essence, they are royalists, and the only way to get free people to go back to serfdom is to disguise it as something else.
Tom,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very interesting series of posts. We hadn't embarked on an analysis of hypocrisy here, and your work does do some work clearing the water. One interesting variable is your variable regarding accuser sincerity and how it bears on Gore: "The accusers do not believe in, or follow, his advocacy, but wish to hold him to a stern interpretation of it.... I think I need to add a question or two in this area, to account for ulterior motives. Gore's accusers only pretend to be exercised by his alleged hypocrisy; it's really his advocacy that bothers them" I think it's a dead-on observation.
That said, I'm not particularly interested in debating the hypocrisy of speaker X or Y. The question is whether, *even if they are hypocrites,* how their hypocrisy bears or doesn't' on their claims. My worry, as your observation above reflects, is that discussions of the character of some messenger can often deflect critical attention from their message. So the point of the piece was not only to show that hypocrisy is often irrelevant (a familiar point), but it can also under the right circumstances support or undercut. So it's better to talk about the issues first.
Tom, it's not so much bashing Rush, who I don't listen to, as you make Gore sound like Mother Theresa. I wouldn't have a problem with him on flying a private jet when he was VP, as the top people in an administration shouldn't be flying commercial. It's his ativities since then that show his hypocrisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd you only need to look to most of the top Democrats to find very rich, very elitist people who also lie cheat and steal, as well as being even bigger hypocrites because they portray themselves as the honest party that cares so much about the little guy, when time after time it's obvious all they really care about is their political career.
I don't like a lot of the Republican politicians either- they are all politicians and tend to have the same characteristics, no matter what lies they speak, but I find the Republicans to be the lesser of evils. A Larry Craig might be doing perverted stuff in men's rooms, but a Blagojevich is trying to sell a Senate seat. A Clarence Thomas or Bob Packwood may have made inappropriate sexual comments to women, but Bill Clinton had women accuse him of far worse- yet the feminazis rabidly attacked the first two, while turning a blind eye toward Slick Willy- in fact they attacked all the women who accused him, from the start.
My dad has been in a union since he first started working and is one of the guys in the mill who is their union representative and he always complains about how despite his promises, typical of every Dem, Clinton only hurt unions, yet the unions (actually the corrupt officials running the unions) never had a problem with him.
Barney Frank was one of the people to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to give loans to people who didn't have enough income, and I saw a video from a couple years ago where he was bashing people who complained that it would lead to major problems for those institutions, yet when what they said came true he was busy blaming everyone but himself.
William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in bribe money in his freezer and not only did the Dems not raise a fuss about him, but the overwhelming Dem population that makes up his district re-elected him. Thankfully he lost this time around, but it shows how Dems tend to bash Republicans for everything while making excuses or turning a blind eye to much of what their people do.
EB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo errors in the previous posting, which I think may be important.
First, you attribute the following hypothesis to us: Hypothesis:
*IF* example Hypocrite G is correct in his position on Issue C, his hypocrisy supports his position and so [we probably] should listen to him."
But we do not say that this conditional or indirect support improves anyone's authority on an issue.
Second, you describe our view as follows: "simply another questionably useful logical textbook exercise or parlor trick, or some slippery way to look at hypocrisy as not-hypocrisy"
But we conceded the hypocrisy charges. The point is that hypocrisy can support a view... so it's not denying hypocrisy. Moreover, describing the view as a 'parlor trick' is, really, dumbfounding. The fact that it yields surprising results doesn't mean that the conclusions were ill-gotten. You place a lot of faith in 'common sense,' but once common sense is applied critically to the cases we've presented, it bears out our conclusions. You're right that there's more science to be done on the issue, but, again, informal logic is in its infancy right now (especially its empirical psychological side), and we answer one question at a time. That doesn't undercut our conclusions, that just means that there's more work to be done.
And time after time, online, I'll find plenty of liberals who will make excuses for everything the Dems do wrong and attack Republicans for everything. I, however, have no problem attacking the Republicans when I think they are wrong, like when President Bush and people like McCain support illegal immigration, or opposed our Assisted Suicide law here in Oregon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I see the left trying to take away our 2nd Ammendment rights, as well as 1st, by imposing the Fairness Doctrine on radio, which is dominated by conservatives, while they aren't talking of imposing it on tv, which is dominated by liberals, plus the idea of "Hate Speech" which I often find liberals using as a term for anything that they disagree with, which is a convenient way of limiting any freedom of speech when they dislike someone. The left also want to take away more and more rights of property owners, many want to tell us what we can't eat- many liberal cities are already banning certain types of foods, whether it's foie gras- which I have no interest in eating but don't think others should be banned- to more and more often limiting things like fast food- which I also don't like but again, who are they to tell us what's good for us and what we can't eat?
Liberals are all about telling people how they must live and year after year they intrude a bit more, edging closer and closer to the social engineering we saw in Stalinist Russia or Mao's China, just on a much more gradual scale.
Tom-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThats where modern conservative politicians (and pundits) diverge from conservative philosophy. You will find that very much on both sides, as well as the aristocratic/autocratic tendencies.
Its one of the obvious dangers of focusing on, or true believing in, the Message while disregarding the human that purports to carry it and seeks power by it.
Scott-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the first; Fair enough, and thats why I couched it '[we probably] should' terms, following the general sentiment of the article. I could have used something on the lines of '... and so we should not [summarily] discount...' but I saw those as more-or-less interchangeable within the context.
As to the second; Admittedly harsh, towards you, I would say. In dealing with Talisse here, I've found some support for the premise and so a bit of guilt by association there.
In fairness, again I couched that in terms of other possibilities that might be ventured,,, adding; " ... and not simply another..."
I do see your point on the area of study and I cuncur as well as commend you in that. I would wholeheartedly agree that it warrants [a great deal of] further investigation as well. Who can say (besides Talisse...) what you may uncover and explain? I look forward to it.
rogeregon-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Concord is a mighty rampart" Erasmus
Scott- excuse the typos, they are an editorial lapse, not an expression of disability. I trust there is nothing that would hinder understanding the statement(s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case:
"Its a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word"- Mark Twain :)
EB:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see my patience and generosity have been misplaced. I have repeatedly demonstrated both the falsehood of several of your contentions and the truth of those contentions of Aikin and I that you have rejected. You have responded to no arguments, but simply continue to name-call, obfuscate, equivocate, and topic-change; you do pretty much anything to avoid having to confront your own ignorance. Your most recent posts are striking in this regard. You refer to rudimentary concepts in argumentation as "parlor tricks" and as "slippery," not realizing that *your own* (rather feeble, to be sure) attempts at reasoning employ them and depend upon them. Then you once again back off your initial, demonstrably incorrect, reading of the article by treating it as an overly harsh remark against Aikin, which you then justify by way of "guilt by association" with me-- inferring that *I'm*the incorrigible and ungracious blowhard in this discussion! Your view, apparently, is that people who know more than you about a subject on which you like to speak authoritatively (but alas have no real understanding), and who take the time and effort to try to correct you, are know-it-alls who deserve scorn. That's an excellent reciple for ensuring that you never really learn anything. I see that it has served you well.
Talisse-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRubbish. I have made many points, asked several questions, clarified my understanding of your & Scott's hypothesis and the logic employed. That you've missed, dismissed, derided or ignored all of the aspects that don't suit you, changes nothing. As for changing subjects, if you mean the tangent on what Doublethink is and is not, I marked an X on the ground with a comment and you dug that hole, with the same cherry-picking dismissiveness and condescenscion you substitute for frank, if heated, dialogue. For the name calling and general bad manners we have at best a pot-kettle situation there.
Some treats for you to gnaw upon. We simply don't have a teacher-pupil relationship here, and the very idea is off-putting. You cant give me an F or an A, or send me to the Dean, nor do I have to submit every argument, point and counterpoint in some obligatory format in order for it to be considered. If you must organize thoughts in a certain manner in order to digest them, thats not my burden. Don't equate an unwillingness out of principle against academic ingsoc and/or interest towards brevity & candor within an IN-formal discussion, to an inability.
Due dilligence, professor. Your methodology and objectives are not the same as mine. That you pour your expertise and insight into making an academically acceptable product is all well and good. My concerns and motivations are broader and more esoteric.
I'm not philosophically or analytically limited to pondering if, how & where your Theory works as intended and within its own boundaries. I must go for the jugular of its many potential, and eventual, misuse(s) and abuse(s), from the perspectives and manners of John Q Public, and in the interest of the same, pro and con. How it bubbles in John Q's head, where John Q goes with it, or is led or mis-led by it.
I have to beat it with altogether different rational (and yes sometimes irrational) spoon and gauge it with a decidedly different critical eye to perform my tests, my due dilligence. For this, I have to understand your hypothesis as-is, which I assuredly DO, and I must also scrutinize it in ways and into relationships that you may not. Real-world, real-time applications of it, that you may neither intend nor foresee. What you see as wrong and dismiss, I take as possible and consider.
Either you can fathom that and see the logic of it, or it is beyond you. I am neither unlearned, unthinking nor simply defiant by any stretch, Robert.
My overall critique of your Hypothesis, as considered: Sic et Non
I will add for clarity, that I also very much consider how things like this bubble in the minds of the upper strata, again in the interests of John Q.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember that the book/hypothesis The Selfish Gene was favorite reading in the corner offices at Enron.
Anything that remotely sounds like justification, will be used to justify.
That it was not the author's intent, is no consolation. We live in a world of constant and overlapping "That was never suppossed to happen..."
EB:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs expected, your latest is just more of the same: assertion without argument. Hence it is clear that we do indeed have different "methodologies and objectives." Good luck with yours. I've given you enough of my time.
And, as expected, you are unwilling or incapable of probing the open waters in which your hypothesis hopes to swim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood luck with yours as well.
Aside from being a Citizen, my primary interest is Law and its associated philosophies and history, by the way.
Legal fictions, creatures of law are nothing other than logical constructs and concepts, figments of the imagination that may or may not bear any resemblance or relation to natural reality but that can nevertheless be conjured up out of thin air and formally recognized as a 'real' entity, as with a corporation or a government.(An exercise and a practice that is in itself a subtle form of doublethink)
I do understand such things, intimately, as well as their theoretical limits and the inherent dangers of allowing them to transcend those limits.
I also deal with the human psyche and society-at-large in that context, as well as forms argument, evidence and inquiry that differ from your own in many respects.
EB,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy apologies for posting so late in the game here, but I've been busy with grading finals. I very early on asked you how you would like it if I said what I thought about you, and you responded: "You are Free to do so, and that is always a good thing in my humble opinion" What follows is my assessment of your contributions and my estimation of you based on them.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Your posts were filled with fallacies, insults, and conspiracy theories. You think of yourself as a conservative, but conservativism is classically a view posited on valuing critical thinking and caring about ideas. Real conservatives wouldn't be afraid of or even disdain the 'elites.' You seem to be caught up too much in the ideology of smearing those you disagree with than listening to them, and your responses here are indicative of the fact that you are here to act out some psychodrama of confronting an enemy that doesn't exist. You don't listen, you don't read, and you fail to argue. It is clear that the more you type, the less you understand. You think you are a serious contributor to this discussion (you care about law and philosophy!), but you have been a persistent impediment to it. I winced earlier when I found myself calling you and Rogerergon part of the 'tinfoil hat brigade,' but now I think I should have been more rough. You are a poser, a blowhard, a knownothing. And one that regularly posts and has no shame in continuing to do so after having been refuted again and again. You are a walking testament to the truth of the refrain: the less they know, the less they know it.
The comment page here had a number of interesting contributions, and ones worth following up. But because you were here, the discussions were derailed. You lodged your objections and got answers. That should have been enough for you, but you acted like a spoiled child and threw a tantrum on the net for everyone here to see. Grow up, EB. Read a book. Take your meds.
:
Hey Scott, tinfoil hats are in fasion!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:P
Why, thank you Scott :) I will take that as a compliment. As I left it with Talisse, 'you are either unwilling or incapable of probing the waters in which your hypothesis hopes to swim.' I was not refuted by any stretch. I gave you that your little hypothesis works fine, within the little confines of its logical premise. Its a good text-book exercise, you could write a nice Play based on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, delved into the numerous ways your hypothesis can, and will, be abused & misused. I have "derailed" the discussion in the same manner as an hypothesis such as yours is going to get 'derailed' in the real world. Its exactly the sort of thing that feeds into the following;
"...Real conservatives wouldn't be afraid of or even disdain the 'elites.'..."
Sic Semper Tyrrannis. There is no such thing as an 'elite'. Its a logical fallicy based on a false premise. Its an idea that has led to the downfall of more civilizations than war and natural catastrophe.
All civilizations begin with a common people, common concerns and a shared set of beliefs and values, a common vision. They form a society that best fits them and protects their interests. They build, invest themselve in, and protect that society because they are a valuable part of that society. Because, it belongs to them.
In fact, I have an hypothesis there of my own:
Barring outside forces, any civilization that comes to be ruled by an elite class pyramid scheme, auto- or aristo- cratic, that elite will eventually alienate itself from and attempt to dominate the common people, the common values, at its foundation. Then the back-bone of the whole structure loses its faith and its incentive to contribute, and it all collapses. The 'elites' are rightly cast down and rightly cast out, having abandoned and perverted the very reason for their existence. The common people are not the 'lowest' but rather the ONLY common denominator, and are the only ones left capable of surviving and starting anew, and they do.
"...You seem to be caught up too much in the ideology of smearing those you disagree with than listening to them..."
Hardly. though who has the right to cast that stone? For one, I have read thoroughly, and listened intently. I've heard a lot of it before and heard it elsewhere. What you call "interesting contributions worth following" are and were only one's that you find comportive.
Here is the only argument I need, the one you can't overcome.
PROVE that it works, in the real world, with direct, positive, predictable results.
That, IS on you.
G'day.
A competing hypothesis;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn any given issue, every bit of thought, effort, support, trust or power given to or wasted upon a hypocrite, makes one less bit available to a non-hypocrite that could and would do a better job with it regarding that issue in the best interests of the people giving that thought, effort, support, trust or power.
Pandering to a hypocrite is a detriment to an issue, to those who could best deal with an issue, and to the people an issue affects.
"... tinfoil hats,,, conspiracy theories,,, enemies that dont exist,,, meds,,,"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisroflmao
Really, for a bunch of self-styled intellectuals, you guys exhibit an almost infantile understanding of this world and how it actually works.
Golly, EB, when you said "G'day" three posts back, I thought that meant you were done with your nonsense. Guess not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou say, "What you call 'interesting contributions worth following' are and were only one's that you find comportive."
Response: Hardly. Many were challenges to issues in the essay (e.g., about 'moral authority'), but follow-up comments didn't register. Again, because the length and absurdity of your comments chased people off. You are like the kid who thinks he gets to talk in class but doesn't do the reading and can't see the point of the lectures. Nobody else wants to contribute, but you hold the floor. It's a shame, EB, because you got your answers, but you persist in posting. Really, why are you still here? Are you lonely? Are you sick? It's the same thing over and over...
You write: "Here is the only argument I need, the one you can't overcome....
PROVE that it works, in the real world, with direct, positive, predictable results."
Response: That wasn't the point of the essay. You're tilting at some other person. You're batting at a straw man. You don't know what you're saying. That's not our responsibility, since we showed what was necessary. There may be other complications, yes, but that this (the conditional support thesis) is a reasonable inference was the only thing we had to show here. To require any more of us in 2000 words is ridiculous. You conceded our point enough times, so *even you* know that this is a dead-end objection.
You write: "Pandering to a hypocrite is a detriment to an issue, to those who could best deal with an issue, and to the people an issue affects."
Yes. That's why it's important to talk about the issues first. That's *our* thesis, not yours. Pandering OR denigrating hypocrites is a waste of cognitive resources... we haven't argued for the former, but you are stuck on the latter. Again, you see the point, but it just doesn't change your behavior. My suspicion is that it's because you have other interests. Perhaps you're such an egotist, you can't admit that you're wrong. Perhaps you can't let those who know more than you have the last word. I don't care, but you need to answer it for yourself.
You write: "Really, for a bunch of self-styled intellectuals, you guys exhibit an almost infantile understanding of this world and how it actually works."
Response: You're the one wrapped in conspiracy theories. You're the one posting on a comment page for no other reason than to be a nuisance. If there's anyone who doesn't know about the world, it's you.
Y'know what, Scott? None of us are going to have the 'last word', not on what it is or isnt, or on where & how it is or isnt used. I am far from an 'egotist' by the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, it is what it is,,, well, sort of,,, I suppose,,, I really can't say for sure what it is at this point..
Its theory, its an hypothesis, its a thesis, its an essay, its a statement, its an argument, its an appeal, its scientific, its conjectural, its empirical, its anecdotal, its acedemic, its political, its social, its philosophical, its beyond common understanding, its self-evident fact, its inference, its baby logic, its formal logic, its informal logic, its logic plain-and-simple, its practical, its unusable, it provokes rational thought, it retards rational thought, its biased, its unbiased, its unsupportive, its supportive, its conditionally supportive, its cautionary, its enabling, its universal, its relative,,,,
its a regular bloody ten-headed flipper-baby is what it is, and that pushes it towards the circus tent of exploitation, or a jar of formaldehyde.
Surely you have books there in the university. Why don't you figure out exactly what it is your thing actually is. Label it clearly as such, follow the clearly established form for it, and keep it within those boundaries.
Totally agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition to the omnipotency of the AAAS trade-union-church with its science testament and gospels...:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNatural Selection Is Built-In Hypocrisy In US Science Structure
A.
http://www.nas.edu/
Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy_of_the_United_States
In the Executive Office of the President, the main body advising the president on science policy is the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Other advisory bodies exist within the Executive Office of the President, including the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the National Science and Technology Council.
Further advice (on legislating science policy) is provided by extra-governmental organizations such as The National Academies, which was created and mostly funded by the federal government,[2] and the RAND Corporation, as well as other non-profit organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society among others.
C.
Conflict of interest arises whenever the personal or professional interests of a board or committee member or of an expert adviser are potentially at odds with the best interests of the nonprofit…by the people for the people…
D.
I rest the people’s case…
Dov Henis
(comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/