|
|
|
Albert Einstein, the dishonest Newton ?!
Copyright 2011 Vincent Wilmot
Newton's black-box physics.
From laws of force and motion in mechanics, Isaac Newton
developed laws of orbital motion around 'centres of force' and
saw gravity as governing the motions of the celestial...
New Age & World Government
The New Age or the Aquarian Age & World Government
It is generally believed that the Aquarian Age started in the year 2000, 2160 years roughly being the Age of a Sign. The Piscean age started at around 200 BCE ( Before...
Resources for Celebrating Black History Month
Black History month in February is an opportunity to broaden your understanding of the role of African-Americans in history. Here are some resources to help you and your family learn more and take part in the celebration. 1. Start by taking the...
The Case Against "Traditional" Piano Lessons
How would you like to spend 4 years in a University learning how to play other peoples music? If you think this is ridiculous, you're right! Because that's what thousands of piano music students do each day. They sit in front of their piano or...
Whatever It Takes!
I have a sign on my office door. It pretty much summarizes my philosophy of life. The sign simply says…..”Whatever it takes.”
Short. Simple. To the Point.
“Whatever it takes,” means exactly that. That I will do “whatever it takes” to get what...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guerilla Mythbusting: 5 Snappy Rules For Spotting and Exposing Popular Nonsense
College students tend to wax enthusiastic about the lessons they pick up in class. Curiously, this very admirable trait, a thirst for knowledge, has a downside to it. When one learns at a rate best described as "alarming," which college students often must do, little time exists to sit and sift through all that new material carefully. And this burdensome task would mandate yet more study time, which luxury few students can afford.
This means that, for very practical reasons, they will tend to accept readily the sermons that echo from academic pulpits. Consumers of media information have nearly the same problem -- a large flow of information thrust at them, and little time to sort through the facts with their attending hype and spin. Election years only magnify this problem, and political candidates can grind axes with the best of them. When a scandal breaks out, the media blitz can sometimes blind even the more critical viewers with their ensuing data-storm. So we have done some of the extra homework for all these groups to help them make the best of this unhappy situation. Here, we offer a clear-headed set of rules to disperse the fog quickly, bringing daylight to the topic at hand.
As a first step in learning to adopt a cautiously critical posture, we would like to introduce to our readers the rule, "take careful notes and develop a long memory by referring back to them now and again." Spinmeisters count on the fact -- a most unhappy truth -- that most people do not remember what the sales script said that they fed to the masses last week. This way, when they change the story next month, you can call them on it. If it's a political speech in question, "Tivo" it, so you can play it back when later when spin proponents deny that their guy ever said it in the first place.
Second, isolate the parts of the speech, the lecture, or what-have-you, that seem to form the main points of the argument. Often this or that advocate of -- let us arbitrarily pick one, say, "scientology," will not state all the main points of his argument explicitly, but will only imply them. Make the implied parts explicit yourself by asking, "what assumption(s), does this depend upon that he has not stated openly?" Then write them down. For instance, if one were to argue, "We had to attack his country because the guy is a tyrant," then note that this assumes -- unless otherwise qualified -- that we must attack all countries where tyrants rule. Given today's political climate, this would not promote a very promising course of action. So stated, we would have to attack almost everyone, starting with the I.R.S.
So remember to make a list of the important claims in question -- whether the speaker or writer has stated, implied, or simply assumed them.
Third, "Always examine a claim by itself first."
This provides a fast and easy way to prevent reckless professors, for instance, from hoodwinking students into bogus philosophies (as is their custom). For instance, consider the popular claim, "There are no moral absolutes." This would mean that claims about morality necessarily have exceptions. Evaluating this claim by its own words, however, quickly reveals that it provides to us an example of a moral absolute. It allows no exception, while speaking to the topic of morality.
Ironically, then, the claim instances an example of just what it denies. The claim cannot be true on ITS OWN terms. Such claims would play the roles of felon AND whistleblower all at once. The philosophy department has named these propositions, "Self-referential absurdities." They represent a form of logical or propositional suicide, since they affirm by example, and yet forbid by principle, the very same thing. This is like the man who marches back and forth all day; and when you finally see his picket sign, you find it reads, "Down With Protesting." Look for these and you will find more than you imagine might suffuse popular chatter.
Fourth, compare and contrast these claims, assumed statements, and implied assertions with one another, asking, "Are these logically consistent with each other, or do they get along like Larry, Moe and Curly when the ladder-swinging begins, and the paintbrushes start to fly?" Sometimes speakers will utter logically incompatible sayings within a very short span. So you will need to learn to identify them to note when this happens. Here, you will have located spin, exaggeration, unwarranted claims, or even outright lies. You might even get two-for-one.
For instance, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, it did so against the voice of the U.N. inspectors, who wanted more time. This shows that the U.S. (or at least the current administration) believes it proper to ignore whatever authority the U.N. might have when it deems it necessary. Yet when Iraq defied the very same U.N. authority (Saddam, as we say, "dissed" the U.N. inspectors) the Bush administration claimed that this provided grounds to invade Iraq. The "Okay for us, but not for them" trick is called the fallacy of self-exception. One commits this error in reasoning when he lays down a rule for
everyone or every argument, and then arbitrarily excuses himself (or his position) from following, or being subject to, the same rule.
Finally, spin-doctors notoriously create mind-fog by abusing langauge. Sometimes they utter deliberately vague or ambiguous sayings. Sometimes they simply make fine-sounding claims and offer no proof. You have heard this many times: "Our product delivers twice the chocolatey goodness and only half the calories!!" (And Joe Fried-potato, who happens to be wider than your dining room, AGREES!!). The simple way to fight mind-fog comes from asking questions that clarify.
For instance, in your criminology course, you might ask Professor Plumb, "Professor, you said something about a candlestick in a library. Precisely what did you mean by "candlestick," and did you mean to refer to this literally, or as some sort of symbol that stands for something else? Press the point, when you feel that someone tries to sell you something, as it were, under-the-table -- and make them sell it over-the-counter instead. Make them say just what they mean, clearly and precisely.
Once you have a clearer idea of the nature of the claim he wishes to promote, you can toss it into the pool of "noted claims to compare and contrast," first measuring that claim by itself, and then by checking it against the other claims in the pool. Some claims will swim, while others will plunge like the Titanic at an iceberg party.
Here, just below, we have collected a few of our favorite sayings popular on college campuses, most of which we have heard Professor Spin mumble more than once from his academic pulpit. Not only do most of these refute themselves, but they also don't get along with each other very well, as we will see. Our helpful and irreverent responses to these appear in brackets.
1. No one can really know anything for sure, when all is said and done. [Really? Are you certain?]
2. All religions are equally valid [Most, but not all, religions deny this] [But we are absolutely sure this is true anyway].
3. We must tolerate all views [except those which deny this][Which includes most, but not all, religions] [but we are absolutely sure that the dissenting religions are all equally wrong][And, of course, we will not tolerate those dogmatic religions].
4. There are no ethical absolutes [And we mean absolutely none] [Note: This claim contradicts #1, 2, and 3 also.]
5. Slavery is wrong [Although this is true, we put it here so you would notice that it contradicts #1, #2, #3 and #4, which shows that claims 1-4 are false, but popular enough anyway].
6. Education is the key to solving the world's problems [Unless we count all the logical problems created by educated people (see above) who say impossible things]. [Note: this also contradicts #1, #2, and #4.]
7. Your western views are too binary [You see, there are only binary views, and non-binary ones -- which is itself a binary view -- oops] [hint: all views logically exclude some other views] [Which, of course, shows that NOT all views are equally valid] [Some views, like "the earth is flat" are just goofy, and these are only "equally vaild" with other stupid ideas].
8. Religion is responsible for killing too many people [which implies that murder is wrong, even though this sounds like a moral absolute] [This also contradicts claims #1-4, and #7.] [And note that, if this statement were true, it would render all religions equally bad, not "equally valid," whatever that might mean].
9. Bible-thumping Christians are too dogmatic. [It is written: Thou shalt not be dogmatic!] [And we are sure of this] [So, follow instead OUR dogma, even though it refutes itself] [Which means that BTC's should not be tolerated, contrary to #3 above] [And that their religion is not "equally valid" with non-thumping religions, contrary to #2].
We could go on, and have great fun doing it, but you get the point. This band of hired accusers failed to coordinate their testimonies in advance. And so many of the views promulgated from academic pulpits turn out just a little nuttier than Jif. Just because a confused-but-confident professor, politician, or spin-doctor says it loudly and often -- this doesn't make it true. So when she says, "question authority," you might want to take her at her word, and start by putting her own claims on the chopping block first.
In any case, by keeping these five rules handy, you can arm yourself against all manner of rhetorical shenanigans and verbal skullduggery.
About the Author
Christopher Brown enjoys writing articles and books, building websites, trading stocks, and blogging. He has taught both English and Philosophy at two colleges, tutored many students, and hosted a radio talk-show. Now, he manages the Ophir Gold Corporation blogsites.
To visit them, go to Writing With Power at http://scriberight.blogspot.com or OGC's Free Web Traffic at http://ophirgoldcorp.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
| philosophy: the best cosmetic is great-looking skin |
| the best skin of your life is at your fingertips. owner and ceo of philosophy, cristina carlino, is the creator, founder and former ceo of BioMedic, ... |
| www.philosophy.com |
|
| The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Non-profit organization that collects and makes available original articles about philosophy topics. University of Tennessee at Martin. |
| www.iep.utm.edu |
|
| Philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
| The entrance page to all articles in the philosophy section of the free encyclopedia. |
| en.wikipedia.org |
|
| Philosophy Pages |
| Aids to the study of philosophy, including study guide, dictionary, timeline, discussion of major philosophers, and links to e-texts. |
| www.philosophypages.com |
|
| Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |
| Online encyclopedia of philosophy created and maintained by Stanford University. |
| plato.stanford.edu |
|
| Table of Contents |
| Arabic and Islamic Philosophy, historical and methodological topics in ... Beattie, James — see Scottish Philosophy: in the 18th Century; Beauvoir, ... |
| plato.stanford.edu |
|
| Philosophy Collection |
| Links to canonical philosophic texts available for viewing. |
| philosophy.eserver.org |
|
| Guide to Philosophy on the Internet (Suber) |
| A regularly updated collection of online philosophy resources by Peter Suber of Earlham College. |
| www.earlham.edu |
|
| Humanities > Philosophy in the Yahoo! Directory |
| Browse resources about philosophers and philosophy, including schools of thought, study guides, university departments, and conferences. |
| dir.yahoo.com |
|
| Bristol University - Department of Philosophy - Home |
| With 13 permanent members of staff, we are larger than many philosophy departments in the UK. Our interests cover a wide range of topics within the Analytic ... |
| www.bris.ac.uk |
|
| Google Corporate Information: Our Philosophy |
| Our Philosophy. Never settle for the best "The perfect search engine," says Google co-founder Larry Page, "would understand exactly what you mean and give ... |
| www.google.com |
|
| Philosophy of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software ... |
| This directory describes the philosophy of the Free Software Movement, which is the motivation for our development of the free software operating system GNU ... |
| www.gnu.org |
|
| Intute: Arts and Humanities - Philosophy |
| Search or browse the database of Philosophy resources which have been selected, evaluated and described by subject specialists. ... |
| www.intute.ac.uk |
|
| EpistemeLinks: For Philosophy Resources on the Internet |
| EpistemeLinks is a comprehensive resource for philosophy on the Internet, providing thousands of links categorized by philosopher, topic, and resource type. |
| www.epistemelinks.com |
|
| Cambridge Journals Online - Display Journal |
| Philosophy is the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, which was founded in 1925 to build bridges between specialist philosophers and a wider ... |
| journals.cambridge.org |
|
| MIT philosophy home page |
| Department of Linguistics and Philosophy - Cambridge, Massachusetts - BA, PhD. |
| web.mit.edu |
|
| The Philosophers' Magazine Online |
| Philosophy articles, bookstore, events, and discussion board. |
| www.philosophersnet.com |
|
| VoS - Voice of the Shuttle |
| The Philosophy of Complexity Per Se with Application to Some Examples in Evolution" ... Philosophy is Everybody's Business: Great Ideas from the Great Books ... |
| vos.ucsb.edu |
|
| Philosophy Now |
| Bi-monthly, non-academic publication with news, articles, and columns aimed at those with an interest in philosophy. Site features select full-text articles ... |
| www.philosophynow.org |
|
| Philosophy around the Web |
| Guide and a gateway to philosophy resources on the Internet, by Dr Peter J. King, University of Oxford. |
| users.ox.ac.uk |
|
|