janw@inmet.UUCP (11/23/85)
One of my opponents has recently made a contribution to logic by inventing a useful term: namely, "implied non-sequitur". This is paradoxical: non-sequitur means a conclusion that does not follow from premise. "Implied* means that it does. It goes like this: you give him a bare fact, no conclusion. He draws a conclusion himself, and does not like it, because it is politically incorrect. He decides the conclusion must be a non- sequitur. He wants to blame you as the cause of it all, but you didn't draw the conclusion ! Hence, it becomes "implied non- sequitur". This invention allows one to reject *facts*, not as being factu- ally wrong, but as liable to lead weak brethren to bad conclusions. This has always been done, to be sure, but now it has a name. Jan Wasilewsky
jim@ISM780B.UUCP (11/25/85)
>One of my opponents has recently made a contribution to logic by >inventing a useful term: namely, "implied non-sequitur". This is >paradoxical: non-sequitur means a conclusion that does not follow >from premise. "Implied* means that it does. Jan, you are not being straightforward. First off, the term Mike Huybensz used was "*suggested* non-sequitur". As you well know, the *suggestion* that Reagan was responsible for an improved job market for women was present, not exactly subtly, in your title "Equality through Reaganomics ?" and in the quote, published in the National Review, which is known to support Reagan's economic policies, used the phrase "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980,". The sarcastic term, plus the fact that Reagan was mentioned at all, was obviously *intended* to *suggest* that Reaganomics was responsible. You won't embarrass yourself by denying it, will you? Now, it *does not follow* just from the quotation that Reaganomics was responsible, or that women benefited, or that the women's jobs are comparable to men's. Yet you explicitly suggested *equality* and *Reaganomics*, the editors of the National Review explicitly referred to *Reagan's power* and through their bias and sarcasm obviously were suggesting that the change was *beneficial*, and you yourself in a later article offered the *"obvious"* "inductive conjecture" that "Business deregulation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action". >It goes like this: you give him a bare fact, no conclusion. He >draws a conclusion himself, and does not like it, because it is >politically incorrect. He decides the conclusion must be a non- >sequitur. He wants to blame you as the cause of it all, but you >didn't draw the conclusion ! Hence, it becomes "implied non- >sequitur". Can you say "disingenuous"? I thought you could. >This invention allows one to reject *facts*, not as being factu- >ally wrong, but as liable to lead weak brethren to bad conclusions. No one has rejected the facts. But facts are plentiful. It is the *context* in which the facts were presented which is rejected. I will accept facts accompanied by objective analysis. Without that, your presentations of fact are simply propaganda, which always has a factual core. Like so many, you use facts as you can to support a position you already hold. But a proper use of facts should constantly *modify* one's position. One's view of the world should *flow* from the facts encountered. The question should not be "Does this fact support my position?" but rather "What does this fact tell me about the world?". The article quoted contained several different statistical and historical facts, but it also contained much non-factual material. The selection of facts, the way they are phrased, and the way they are organized are all non-factual. The use of a word like "dreaded" as satire is completely non-factual, as is labeling as in "Reaganomics and Equality ?". Your thesis of free-standing fact, with no conclusions implied, is the corrupt offering of the disinformationist. Madison Avenue's greatest asset is people's belief that they are not affected by advertising. Do these "facts" look familiar: Mom vs. Pop? The following is from "Santa Cruz Gayzette", quoted in "Ms." May 1, page 69: Since our beloved Ronald Reagan took the throne in 1980, a period that has seen an extraordinary growth in the service sector, the job factory has opened up 7,067,000 new slots, with women taking 5,540,000, or 78.4 per cent of the toil. However, they have only been able to capture about 65 per cent of the wage and salary growth. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)
janw@inmet.UUCP (11/27/85)
[ Jim Balter (ima!jim)]
>[criticism of my polemical methods]
(1) suggestion vs implication. I gave no names or features iden-
tifying a particular article, so was not obliged to recheck
anyone's wording. I attacked a world-view, not a person. In
fact, my satirical picture fits *you* better than Mike, who is
sometimes objective. Had you noticed that, you might have com-
plained that my "weak brethren" misquotes your "small minds".
The same answer would apply.
(2) You are right that tone and wording flavor the
impression. Total sterility is impractical and undesirable.
Madison Avenue is another extreme. Or, should I say, near extreme,
since some of your own articles go beyond. I am too lazy to search,
but they go somewhat like this: BLATHERING IDEOLOGUES WOULD
HAVE US ACCEPT THE RIDICULOUS NOTION THAT ... .
No exaggeration here, except for the lettering.
It is as if I said "our wonderful free-market economy
has again out-performed itself". At least that would be positive.
In the episode of jobs for women, which you mostly discuss,
the packaging was very slight, compared to the fact. Completely
neutral wording would convey exactly the same impression.
--Try this :
The following data is from Detroit News :
Since Reagan took office, 84% of the 7 million new jobs and 65% of
salary growth went to women.
--Want to post it like this ?
(3) It is the *selection* of data that you really object to.
Remember the Marshal Ogarkov episode ? There, I posted a *com-
pletely* bare fact. You greeted it even more violently than this one.
---Factophobia, all right.
Madison Avenue is tricky. But a regime of psychological terror,
existing in much of US educated community, is far worse. There
are many people out there who, for example, *vote for Reagan* who
never dare to open their mouth to say anything in his favor.
People live in an world insulated from non-kosher facts.
During the Cambodian Holocaust, for example, they had no idea of
it. ( It was in NY Times, all right, in rare small notes on back pages,
with "unconfirmed" the most prominent word. On editorial pages,
they could find Anthony Lewis lauding Pol Pot's promising so-
cial experiment.)
Right now, they talk of El Salvador, not knowing that
right-wing terror is long over, it is all left-wing now.
Some of this regime exists on the net, too; and you are one of
its active enforcers. I ignore your taboos, hence the outcry.
Last point: *I consider breaking these taboos more important
even than the content of what I say*. In the name
of intellectual honesty (which you often take in vain),
it is unfair to say A when you wouldn't dare to say non-A.
Jan Wasilewskyjim@ISM780.UUCP (11/28/85)
>(1) suggestion vs implication. I gave no names or features iden- >tifying a particular article, so was not obliged to recheck >anyone's wording. I attacked a world-view, not a person. In >fact, my satirical picture fits *you* better than Mike, who is >sometimes objective. Had you noticed that, you might have com- >plained that my "weak brethren" misquotes your "small minds". >The same answer would apply. Of course you are not *obliged*. But you might be better off. If your attack on a world-view is based on misinterpretation, then it is to your own benefit, if your interest is to not be mistaken, to check the facts. Not identifying the article doesn't change which one was at issue. Whoever you think the world-view fits, your attack isn't relevant if it isn't based on facts. If you want to attack my world-view, I suggest that you do it based strictly on quotes from me if you expect it to have any weight at all. Your above paragraph in no way responds to my criticisms. Waving a magic "I didn't name the article" wand doesn't respond to them. If you read my comments, you would see that my point was that your mockery makes no sense re "suggested", the word actually used. I was not talking of misquoting per se. Of course I noticed "weak brethren" and the degree to which your attack was aimed at me, but I didn't consider it relevant; the "suggest non-sequitur" line was Mike's, not mine. And implying that I am *never* objective is just silly propaganda and posturing. I have no doubt that you are sometimes, in fact quite often, objective. If you do not know the same of me then I truly pity you. It is this sort of posturing that I consider intellectually dishonest; you make claims about people that satisfy your ideological urges but contradict your own evidence, and you come to believe them. And I admit here that my calling you stupid is silly; I know you aren't stupid. No matter how infuriated I get, I know it won't be true. If I allow myself to become convinced of it I will only fool myself. It is a challenge to understand how an intelligent person can say some of the things you say that seem to me so outside the processes of logic, but I know that my responsibility to myself is to understand it, especially if it means discovering my own errors. I find it very hard to imagine that you can truly think that someone who would even talk about taking such an approach is never objective. >(2) You are right that tone and wording flavor the >impression. Total sterility is impractical and undesirable. >Madison Avenue is another extreme. Or, should I say, near extreme, >since some of your own articles go beyond. I am too lazy to search, >but they go somewhat like this: BLATHERING IDEOLOGUES WOULD >HAVE US ACCEPT THE RIDICULOUS NOTION THAT ... . >No exaggeration here, except for the lettering. >It is as if I said "our wonderful free-market economy >has again out-performed itself". At least that would be positive. a) The whole point is that you claimed neutrality; no conclusion, no leading of the reader. Thanks for admitting otherwise. b) The problem with laziness is that the memory is tricky. In your comparison, your change my stress by capitalizing, you reword, you compare with a statement with easily rejected content but omit my statement's content, and you imply my statement had no positive value (and I don't see how the statement you offer does; it seems to me information-free). I hold that that is all dishonest; you may disagree. Just for clarity, let me repeat the actual statement you refer to: "Arguments that Nicaragua is a totalitarian regime are based entirely on emphatic assertion, and ridiculous ideological blathering that all governments of a certain form necessarily take a certain course (I heard Kissinger say in his interview with David Frost that it was ok to depose Allende because, not only was he a Marxist, but he was only elected by a plurality)." I can believe that you consider this an extreme beyond Madison Avenue, but if so I simply pity you. >In the episode of jobs for women, which you mostly discuss, >the packaging was very slight, compared to the fact. Completely >neutral wording would convey exactly the same impression. > > --Try this : >The following data is from Detroit News : >Since Reagan took office, 84% of the 7 million new jobs and 65% of >salary growth went to women. > --Want to post it like this ? Boy, you are really slow. What I want is "The following data is from Detroit News : Since *1980*, 84% of the 7 million new jobs and 65% of salary growth went to women. Does anyone care to comment how this might be related to the policies of the Reagan adminstration? The figures are calculated coincident with its inception, which could misleadingly encourage a causal connection; it depends on the degree to which the results are due to those policies, as opposed to other social and job market trends. If these jobs are of comparable value to those of the men already in the work force, it seems to me to indicate that those policies promote equality for women, and better than affirmative action (although I don't have any a.f. figures on hand. Anyone out there?). Of course, if high-paid men are losing jobs to lower paying women, then the equality comes at quite a price. And, if the increase in women's jobs is due to movement of the job market into the service sector or other areas more accepting of women, then the equality may be only numeric but not in quality." I.e., don't include one of the conclusions (Reaganomics responsible) in the *data*, don't label the article with one simplistic interpretation, and suggest the possible explanations that come to mind, including those that both would support and challenge your leanings concerning economic policy. Yeah, yeah, too much work. Ok, so settle for simplistic analysis and answers. >(3) It is the *selection* of data that you really object to. >Remember the Marshal Ogarkov episode ? There, I posted a *com- >pletely* bare fact. You greeted it even more violently than this one. > ---Factophobia, all right. You really believe your own rhetoric, don't you? Your "fact" was a partial quote, that indicated nothing directly, and with no indication of source (you later indicated that it was from a document obtained from the invasion of Grenada, but such nth-hand substantiation doesn't quite fit my definition of a "fact"). I was quite explicit about my criticisms. Violent? Did your terminal burn? Do you know the meaning of the word? Here, to refresh your memory, and supplement your laziness, is my "violence": >An authoritative opinion, to put things in perspective: > >] ... over two decades ago, there was only Cuba in Latin America, >] today there are Nicaragua, Grenada, and a serious battle >] is going on in El Salvador. > >[Marshal N. V. Ogarkov, then Soviet Chief of Staff, writing >to his counterpart in Grenada, Major E. Louison] You're really impressed by this sort of thing, aren't you? Have you ever heard of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? People quoted a lot from that juicy "document" too in order to support their views not supported by more reliable forms of evidence. Even assuming that the quote is legitimate, it can easily be interpreted as a list of Latin American nations which are self-determined, free from American control. Certainly these are the nations or movements opposed by the U.S. If you think this quote *proves* something, I really pity you. Everything you believe may be true, but if you are not capable of interpreting information and evidence impartially, independently of the conclusion you wish to come to, then the conclusion itself is totally untrustworthy. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim) >Madison Avenue is tricky. But a regime of psychological terror, >existing in much of US educated community, is far worse. There >are many people out there who, for example, *vote for Reagan* who >never dare to open their mouth to say anything in his favor. >People live in an world insulated from non-kosher facts. Gee, I know a lot of people who so "dare". A lot of people don't say anything because they have nothing to say. According to some polls, many people voted for him and would still vote for him, but do not support his policies; they probably do not associate the two, or they find his charisma!and reputed leadership capabilities more important. What you said above sure *looks* ideologically driven to me. If it isn't, how about some *facts* to support the existence of this terror campaign you proclaim? >During the Cambodian Holocaust, for example, they had no idea of >it. ( It was in NY Times, all right, in rare small notes on back pages, >with "unconfirmed" the most prominent word. On editorial pages, >they could find Anthony Lewis lauding Pol Pot's promising so- >cial experiment.) Who are these "they"? I find a lot of idiots on the editorial page. Do you reduce the opinions of a large group of people to that of one particular person that you happen to associate with them? And what does this have to do with psychological terrorism and not daring to express approval of Reagan (I have trouble not laughing at that one; I would be the last one to deny that there aren't a lot of people who express such approval)? If this is the sort of "fact" and "evidence" and "analysis" that you use, I certainly understand how you come to your conclusions. >Right now, they talk of El Salvador, not knowing that >right-wing terror is long over, it is all left-wing now. And how do you "know" this? Liar, liar, pants on fire. You can *know* nothing, without impartial analysis. >Some of this regime exists on the net, too; and you are one of >its active enforcers. I ignore your taboos, hence the outcry. Taboos? Enforcement? You can say anything you damn well please. I have neither power nor desire to stop you. But I will see fit to call it dishonest when I think it is. You think if someone tries to change your mind through debate and criticism, tries to invade your intellectual blindness, that is enforcement? You sound like one of these people who says, when they cannot defend their position, "I have a right to my opinion". That is a strawman; of course you do. You can believe all the idiotic things you want, but if you think I will *respect* you for it, or not *criticize* you for them, you are wrong. I make it clear just what I am responding to and how I feel about it and why. Saying that the *reason* I say what I say is because you are breaking taboos is dishonest because it simply does not follow from the evidence. What you are upset about is that I tell you off, but you can't so say honestly and thus invent this "psychological terror" hobgoblin. Well, I'll tell you what you find so terrifying: the truth. Now of course you believe the same of me, but I'm not cowering at some bogeyman or making you part of some elite censorship group without ever even having met you; I call you a disinformationist because you deal in innuendo and ideology instead of analysis, but I think you do it out of your own personal delusory system, one not unlike that of many others, but I don't suspect you of colluding. >Last point: *I consider breaking these taboos more important >even than the content of what I say*. In the name >of intellectual honesty (which you often take in vain), >it is unfair to say A when you wouldn't dare to say non-A. If you say A and you don't believe it and you don't say you don't believe it, that is certainly intellectual dishonesty. Destroying the ability to reliably tell truth from non-truth is the heart of disinformation. For all A, I am willing to say I can conceive A; but the probabilities with which I believe things likely differ widely. Let me tell you what is intellectually dishonest: it is to say that I take it in vain, *without support*. Every time I have said it to you, I have said it directly in response to something you said, with explanation. Intellectual dishonesty is to believe something *without being willing to convince yourself of it from a point of neutrality*. Try an experiment: set out to prove that the majority of violence in El Salvador is caused by the *government*. See if you can succeed. Do it vigorously. Seek out all sources. If you fail, your current views will be strongly justified. If you succeed, your new view will be strongly justified. That, my friend, is what intellectual honesty is all about. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)