Are we out to convince people of the truth of our assertions? Is this a pull of psychology? The truth of our statements does not come from the way they are stated, nor from the ability or quality of the speaker. Rather it comes from the veracity of the reasons behind those statements.
As a test, do the following, find someone to talk to in a quiet room. You will want to make notes of his/her reaction to the statements that were made. Record on film the following: in a sensual manner make the following statement: "It is summer in the middle of January" or "3+4=12". Then in a rough, rebuking tone, repeat the statements. Do the same in a soft, gentle tone, and again in a speaking, commanding tone. Repeat the above for the following statements: "The largest single landmass on the planet earth is the Eurasian continent" or "1+1 = 2". Make careful note of his/her reaction. Notice how the quality of the way in which the statements were made changed his/her reaction regardless of the veracity of what was stated. You can say an outright lie, in a way that is soft, gentle or loud or sensual, and you can change the perception of the person.
The point of the above test is to show that our emotions can sway our perceptions and beliefs. In fact they can do so in a way that we may or may not even realize. We may think that we are unswayed by our emotions, but that is not true. On average, unless we are very aware of our reactions to different emotions, we can totally ignore what was being said and accept it as true, as long as it vaguely fits with our overall belief system, as long as it is conveyed in an emotionally pleasing manner.
However, when it comes to analyzing the truth and whether or not a statement is true or not, depends not on our emotional response, but whether the reasons presented for a particular statement are logical, and are accurate and fit the facts. We must be extremely careful and accurate in our diction, choice of words and accuracy in thought and logic to make precise and detailed analysis of whether or not our actions, statements and thoughts are indeed logical and make sense, practically and in real terms.
This takes work. Most people are not open to such degrees of accuracy, truth and sound reasoning. The point is that this is one approach among many to ensuring that what we understand to be true is indeed true and can withstand tests against our understanding, perspectives and perceptions on reality.
Indeed, our prejudices and subjectivity, life experience and up-bringing have a tremendous impression on our perceptions of reality and how the world works. How do we perceive the world? How do we view others in our worldview? What is our paradigm, can we engage in what may be termed a paradigm shift? Is that an option? If we cannot entertain that we can undergo paradigm shifts, then our openness to engaging in other points of view and perceptions is severely limited. This limitation is born our of emotions and prejudices, and not out of logic or reasoning.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Positive Evidence and the "Maybe Fallacy"
"The Maybe Fallacy"
Often people conjecture: "Well, maybe your statement isn't so", or "Perhaps some objection can be made". The standard response is: "Yes, maybe the position is wrong, and perhaps there are alternatives, but until there is positive evidence, that the position is to be re-assessed in light of the new positive evidence, there is no reason to reject it on the grounds of a 'maybe position'.
Maybe green aliens created the universe through a giant aerosol can, and perhaps transcendental, pan-galactic beings invaded the earth 45 billion years ago, and implanted a biological device that makes us think that the universe is 15 billion years old. However, this is all conjecture, and extremely far-fetched to show that the fallacy is one that requires substantiation and cannot be the basis for a solid objection.
The premise for the "Maybe Fallacy" objection is that proof requires 100% certainty, and anything less is not to be taken as being believable. This premise is incorrect, no theory, position or proof has 100% certainty, in fact, we cannot even prove to absolute certainty that your parents are in fact your parents, even with DNA records indicating that, since there is a small (not insignificant) chance that they are not your parents. We can therefore safely conjecture that if on a sliding scale, knowing our parents and agreeing that they are indeed our parents on the basis of high level of certainty, allows us to be objectively real, when it comes to all elements of proof and certainty.
In this respect then, the "Maybe Fallacy" falls flat, because it assumes that proof requires 100% certainty, and since that is an impossibility on axioms known to be true, we can therefore argue that the premise is indeed wrong.
If however you wish to argue and say that the maybe fallacy doesn't have such a premise, it is still fallacious since it simply argues that a 'maybe' position weakens a position already thus established as reasonable, and likely given the evidence suggested. In this circumstance, to argue that it may not be so, requires positive evidence against the statement. The Maybe Fallacy fails to procure such evidence and can be shown to be pure sophistry.
Often people conjecture: "Well, maybe your statement isn't so", or "Perhaps some objection can be made". The standard response is: "Yes, maybe the position is wrong, and perhaps there are alternatives, but until there is positive evidence, that the position is to be re-assessed in light of the new positive evidence, there is no reason to reject it on the grounds of a 'maybe position'.
Maybe green aliens created the universe through a giant aerosol can, and perhaps transcendental, pan-galactic beings invaded the earth 45 billion years ago, and implanted a biological device that makes us think that the universe is 15 billion years old. However, this is all conjecture, and extremely far-fetched to show that the fallacy is one that requires substantiation and cannot be the basis for a solid objection.
The premise for the "Maybe Fallacy" objection is that proof requires 100% certainty, and anything less is not to be taken as being believable. This premise is incorrect, no theory, position or proof has 100% certainty, in fact, we cannot even prove to absolute certainty that your parents are in fact your parents, even with DNA records indicating that, since there is a small (not insignificant) chance that they are not your parents. We can therefore safely conjecture that if on a sliding scale, knowing our parents and agreeing that they are indeed our parents on the basis of high level of certainty, allows us to be objectively real, when it comes to all elements of proof and certainty.
In this respect then, the "Maybe Fallacy" falls flat, because it assumes that proof requires 100% certainty, and since that is an impossibility on axioms known to be true, we can therefore argue that the premise is indeed wrong.
If however you wish to argue and say that the maybe fallacy doesn't have such a premise, it is still fallacious since it simply argues that a 'maybe' position weakens a position already thus established as reasonable, and likely given the evidence suggested. In this circumstance, to argue that it may not be so, requires positive evidence against the statement. The Maybe Fallacy fails to procure such evidence and can be shown to be pure sophistry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)