| Chapter 1 INTRODUCTORY DISCUSSION "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -- I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." Robert Frost, poet; from the poem "The Road Not Taken" (MacMillan 227). INTRODUCTION This introductory chapter identifies fourteen common misconceptions just below. These misconceptions will each be discussed individually in subsequent chapters. The remainder of this chapter will discuss ancillary issues, especially your ability to reliably recognize truth. COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS Fourteen common misconceptions are now identified. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Monopolies Without government intervention, monopolies will arise out of a free market by eliminating (or collaborating with) their competition, and then use their monopolistic position to exploit the people. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Income Tax Virtually all the people in the United States are subject to the (federal) income tax. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Evolution The Bible and the theory of evolution present opposing (time length) descriptions of the past. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill of Rights The most important rights possessed by the citizens of the United States are granted by that portion of their constitution known as the Bill of Rights. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Electricity There are such things as electricity and magnetism, electric fields and magnetic fields. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Matter There is such a thing as matter; matter, especially in its solid form, is the ultimate of existence, whereas (electromagnetic) fields are somewhat ephemeral. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tariffs Legislatures and government officials can use logical methods to set the individualized tariffs and/or quantity limits on foreign-import goods to optimize the benefit to their country. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Inflation Inflation is inevitable, and businesses, unions, foreigners and certain spending habits of the public all contribute to inflation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Draft The USA Congress has the authority to require citizens of the United States (e.g., males eighteen years old) to register for the draft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Civil Rights There is such a thing as a civil right. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Experimentation Scientists must conduct experiments to understand the laws of physics. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gravity Gravity exists (as a distinct force). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Racketeering Governments can pass valid laws outlawing racketeering and/or conspiracy. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Welfare Welfare is the result of (western) governments adopting certain Judeo-Christian principles. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- BIASES Biases and preconceived opinions are a convenient intellectual shortcut to dealing with everyday situations. For example, you are likely biased against armed robbers and muggers. When you hear about a street mugging, mental energy need not be wasted to evaluate if such an occurrence is good or bad. The holding of biases is a normal and rational part of living. That said, it is also wise to reevaluate those biases periodically. The "misconceptions" challenged in this book are an accepted part of our present-day culture. This book is a vehicle for your personal reevaluation. One important aspect of such reevaluations must be confronted head-on: the confrontation of biases often leads to hostility, the avoidance of such confrontation, or both. The longer the bias has been held the greater the likelihood that a challenge to that bias will elicit hostility or avoidance. Although such reactions are a tendency of our human nature, they are not inevitable. The ideal conduct -- the conduct of an enlightened individual -- is to reevaluate his or her biases periodically, and to do so in as intellectual and non-emotional manner as possible. Once this periodic reevaluation is properly completed, the appropriate biases may be restored -- and even some hostilities may be restored, such as hostility toward muggers. You are now invited to evaluate these challenges to your conceptions as part of your pure quest for truth. Although the evaluation process must be excised of emotion, the thrill of acquiring new and important insights should be eagerly anticipated. ORGANIZATION AND CONTENT The following fourteen essay chapters address the misconceptions that have just been identified. The organization and content of these chapters vary, but generally they contain these seven elements: 1) Subject introduction, identification, importance and background; 2) Assertion and development plan; 3) Scope, qualifications, assumptions and definitions; 4) Principal arguments and presentation of evidence; 5) Additional related discussions; 6) Negation of potential rebuttal arguments; and 7) Concluding discussion and summary. This book is not about opinions, but about facts, and the reasoning that reveals those facts. However, the fifth element, "additional related discussions," may sometimes include certain opinions; when included, these opinions are explicitly labeled as such. The fifth element may also include "statements of fact" that are not justified; when included, these unjustified assertions are also explicitly labeled as such. These opinions and unjustified assertions, though not essential, provide an answer to certain ancillary issues. The content of the essay chapters are lengthened somewhat to meet the needs of the general public: in addition to the core rationale, they include discussions, examples and a modest amount of repetition. SUMMARIES Arguments that never are -- or can't be -- summarized, should be treated warily. Chapter 18 Summary contains the above statements, presents the revealed truths and shows a summary justification for presenting such positions as truths. Generally, each set, in Chapter 18, of "statement, truth and justification" occupies less than a page. However, even these summary justifications are not optimized for brevity, instead informally including supports such as rhetorical questions. The pure and elegant justifications will be left to scholars. Appendix 3 Definitions explains the meaning of key words/concepts. In many ways, this is a summary also. This appendix addresses the issue of how our use of language influences or distorts our reasoning; indeed, it will be seen that a number of justification arguments achieve their purpose simply by defining terms. ASSUMPTIONS How do you recognize truth? One infallible attribute of truth is its consistency. False arguments can be recognized as such when they lead to inconsistencies. But what is the path to truth? That is, how can truth be shown? The outline described above is a good guide for valid argument essays. That outline included the explicit identification of assumptions. The text just below addresses the global assumptions used in this book. These assumptions generally will not be repeated for each subject, so they need to be kept in mind. Unfortunately, the ideal of explicitly identifying all assumptions is impractical because the quantity of assumptions is so enormous. Scholars will certainly want more assumptions explicitly identified than are identified in this book, but for the purposes of this book a practical limit has been set. Most readers should be satisfied that all the key assumptions have been identified without a tedious listing of obvious assumptions. Yet, it is important to remember that, for any one subject, if the reader disagrees with an assumption, or concludes that an important assumption has not been explicitly included, then a disagreement with the conclusions is perfectly proper even if the text contains no error in logic. The global assumptions are that: 1) the reader is intelligent but uninformed about these subjects, and in some cases unaware of being uninformed; 2) the reader is reasonably well read, and has thereby acquired many of society's conceptions; 3) the truth of the assertions made, regarding the fourteen selected subjects in this book, can be determined by reason and logic; 4) no one can properly disagree with the conclusions stated in this book unless they have contrary rational arguments; 5) the reader need not (assumption #4 notwithstanding) immediately accept all the conclusions in this book; 6) the longer, more involved, an argument is -- though such may be necessary -- the less it is to be trusted; and 7) the reader will find the subjects in this book interesting and intellectually stimulating. Some comments regarding assumption #3 are in order. The consequence of assumption #3, if true, is that the conclusions presented herein are not opinions but facts. The conclusions drawn are either correct or wrong -- it is a question of black and white. The reader is (most likely) immersed in a culture in which conclusions regarding several of these subjects are considered subject to reason, such as physics, but conclusions regarding several other subjects are considered to be just a matter of opinion, such as the philosophy of government. Therefore, a cultural adaptation will likely be needed. Indeed, the unifying theme of this book is that the same reasoned-thought process can and should be used to ascertain the truth of all these diverse subjects: all fourteen selections are "hard-knowledge" subjects. Some comments regarding assumption #5 are also in order. One need not accept an argument immediately even though no error in the argument is (immediately) discernible. To say otherwise makes you vulnerable to all skilled salesmen. Use assumption #5 as a good reason to relax -- no immediate decision is required. RECOGNIZING TRUTH It has been asserted that the fourteen statements above -- identifying and defining fourteen conceptions -- are accepted as true by our present society (though usually implicitly rather than explicitly). It has also been stated that contrary assertions will be made regarding these conceptions, and that these contrary assertions will be justified. Furthermore, the assumption was explicitly stated that you, the reader, must not reject these conclusions if the justification case is properly made; that is, if the assumptions are sound and complete, the arguments are sound and complete, and no error is discernible. But, how are you to know whether the arguments are sound? One of the stated assumptions is that you are intelligent. However, that assumption, by itself, does not ensure that you can distinguish between truth and falsehood. The suggested answer is: the assertion has been justified if the above-detailed seven elements are properly presented. The most critical element, the "principal arguments and presentation of evidence" element, is properly presented if the following seven critical criteria are met: 1) The assertion must be reasonably practical for human affairs, or quantifiable with measurements for natural phenomena; 2) The assumptions and definitions must be adequately complete; 3) The assumptions and definitions must be consistently logical; 4) The assumptions and definitions must be acceptable and satisfactorily connected to reality; 5) The arguments and rebuttals must be logical; 6) The arguments and rebuttals must avoid circular-logic; and 7) The evidence must be valid, accurate and come from a valid source. And finally, how should the reader assess item five; that is, how should the reader assess whether the arguments and rebuttals are logical? A popular college textbook provides an eight-item checklist of logical fallacies (Fowler and Aaron 144): 1) Begging the question, 2) Non sequitur, 3) Inappropriate appeals, 4) Jumping to a conclusion, 5) Reductive fallacy, 6) Post hoc fallacy, 7) False dilemma, and 8) False analogy. "Begging the question" treats an assertion as if it has been proven, whereas it has not. "Non sequitur" ("it does not follow") draws an inappropriate conclusion from certain evidence. "Inappropriate appeals" use prejudice, flattery, inappropriate appeals to patriotism, denigration of an argument because of the source, or etc. "Jumping to a conclusion" uses too little evidence. "Reductive fallacy" inadequately relates a supposed cause to an effect. "Post hoc fallacy" improperly relates a supposed cause to an effect simply because it precedes the effect. "False dilemma" supposes there are only a few possibilities, whereas there are really more possibilities. "False analogy" draws inappropriate conclusions from an analogy that is really not fully analogous. EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES It is claimed that the assertions made will be justified, and the reader is personally capable of validating the justifications. The reader can use reason, and therefore does not have to take the word of any expert regarding these subjects. However, the following discussion will include the essence of rebuttals to certain often-repeated denigrations of reason (i.e., statements regarding the inadequacy of reason found in many popular philosophy books). Three points must be made initially. First, the discussion in this chapter is brief and is not a full justification; instead its primary purpose is to instill confidence in your capability to be a good judge of truth. Second, supplementary epistemological discussions can be found in Chapter 12 Experimentation, with indirect support in Chapter 17 Concluding Discussion and Appendix 3 Definitions. Third, it has to be acknowledged that necessary reasoning requires the discipline of intellectual honesty and the expenditure of mental energy; however, it is hereby further asserted that the effort will be amply rewarded by the thrill of discovery. The text above provided a checklist guide to validate the efficacy of the justifications in this text (or almost any other argument). These guidelines provide the reader with tools. You do not have to take someone's word because you now have these tools to make a decision for yourself. Have confidence. No expert's opinion is worth more than your application of these tools. If you reason correctly, no one else's statement should take precedence over your conclusions. Have confidence: your application of reason qualifies you for that confidence. You can correctly state that certain things are matters of fact. If there are human-type beings on the far side of the universe, and they, by chance, also examined the above-identified conceptions, they must come to the same conclusions as stated here, if they reason correctly. That is the outcome of correct reasoning. And if those hypothetical beings can use their intellect to reach those valid conclusions, so can you. How can any person claim their view of the philosophy of government (or any other subject) is absolutely right? The previous sentence is usually presented as a rhetorical question; however, it will be adequately answered in this paragraph. The answer is the same answer for why you can confidently state that if you walked into a tall skyscraper it will not come crashing down on you. The answer is the same answer for why you can confidently state that the airplane you are about to board will not come crashing to the earth. The answer is the same answer for why you can confidently state that your car will comfortably transport you at speeds much faster than you can run. The answer is the same answer for why you can confidently state that the electric toaster you use will not electrocute you. The answer is the same answer for why you can confidently state that ... well, you get the idea. So, the previous paragraph answered the (supposed rhetorical) question of why some one could justifiably claim their view of a subject is absolutely right. If you accept the assertion generally, but are still bothered by the assertion when the subject is government, we further point out that the principles described in this book become even more imperative if there were uncertainty about the proper role of government (though we don't accept there is such uncertainty). The role of government will not be explored here, but note that, as an example of how such imperatives operate, uncertainty about government's proper role makes it important (i.e., imperative) for government to use extreme restraint in using force (or the threat of force) against its citizens. Confidence in the general efficacy of reason, as described above, is not a characteristic of our society. That is despite the fact that it is taken for granted in many situations; for example, it is almost always taken for granted in activities related to earning a living. One quite-influential example used to disparage reason (albeit usually implicitly) is the notorious tendency for philosophers to come to widely differing conclusions. These philosophers are very intelligent, and their approach usually does not include significant errors of logic. The philosopher's assumptions (or axioms) are the problem; this situation is exacerbated by psychological motivations. This text avoids such difficulties by following a "reasoning format" which includes a clear and explicit identification of the assumptions. The assertion is reiterated: reason can be a reliable means to ascertain matters of fact. Can different people use reason and yet reach different conclusions? We have acknowledged that, yes, different people, separately employing reason and logic honestly, and nominally without error, may still come to different conclusions. But that is not a serious impediment to our purposes here, because the acknowledgement did not (yet) consider the full context of the use of logic. The philosopher Ayn Rand wrote that before (you go to the trouble of) examining someone's reasoning, you should first examine their axiomatic concepts. Many well-known philosophers wrote long quite-involved treatises expounding their philosophies; Rand's evaluation principle gives a powerful method to determine quickly if their construction -- no matter how well put together -- will not stand, because of a bad foundation. This book will not examine deep philosophical issues, so axiomatic concepts are not needed, but assumptions (which are less fundamental than axiomatic principles) are needed. Given the assumptions (including the full pertinent context) and sound reasoning, the conclusions are preordained. Some examples of "matters-of-fact" (or "black and white") contrasted with "shades of gray" are in order. The issue of whether a large-skyscraper's construction tolerances exceed given standards is a matter-of-fact issue. The question of first versus second-degree murder could be an example of a shade of gray judgment (which has serious consequences). The ability, at full throttle, of an aircraft's wings to generate enough lift to raise the plane from the runway is a matter-of-fact issue. The relative merit of "hard rock" versus "classical" music is a shade of gray issue. The ability of ice to float on water is a matter-of-fact issue. The attractiveness of a beauty-contest entrant is a shade of gray issue. To those (philosophers) who say that "ice floating on water" is a matter of probability not a matter of fact, and that you can only be certain of pure logic, we say that logic is a means to an end. Logic, including mathematics, is a means to determine matters of fact. To those (philosophers) who say that our finite brains and error-prone senses make it impossible to be confident we know things, we point to astronomers who have determined many wonderful characteristics of the cosmos based on data from very-crude error-prone instruments; their reasoning compensated for those limitations. To those (philosophers) who say that there just are matters of fact that cannot be known, we point out that this is a self-contradictory statement. While admitting that there are many (important) things humanity still has to learn, we also point out that the list of so-called "unknowable facts" has needed some embarrassing withdrawals. For example, Kant (the most famous philosopher to "use reason to disprove reason") pointed to the size of the universe (if it was finite that was impossible to visualize, and if it was infinite that was impossible to visualize), but now cosmologists make calculations regarding a finite-unbounded universe. Two of our selected subjects include religion. Can reason be applied to religion? For purposes of this text, that question is unimportant, because there are no explicit arguments intended to change your beliefs about religion, whether you are an atheist, agnostic, a member of an organized religion, or someone with independent religious beliefs. Religion is a sensitive subject, and the assertion that the arguments presented should be neutral with respect to your beliefs about religion is itself based on a value system that may differ from your value system. But, it is true that there is no intent to change the reader's religious beliefs. SUMMARY This chapter identified and defined the fourteen common misconceptions that are the book's focus. The chapter then discussed the issue of biases. The organization, content and methodology of the forthcoming argument essays were then described. It was suggested that was a good guide for essays that made valid arguments. The importance of explicitly identifying assumptions was noted, and the global assumptions for the book were described. One key assumption -- and the unifying theme of this book -- is that the same reasoned-thought process can be used to ascertain the truth of these diverse subjects. This was followed by the identification of critical criteria that the reader can and should use as a tool to validate arguments. It was emphasized that the reader would certainly be able to use these tools to determine the truth of the assertions without relying on, or trusting, anyone else. This was followed by a brief rebuttal of several often-heard reasons why people (like the reader) cannot trust their reasoning powers. It was also pointed out that there is a supplementary epistemological discussion in Chapter 12, with indirect support in Chapter 17 and Appendix 3. For one final time let us answer this question: how can you know that the (primary) assertions in this book are true? We will give two equally valid answers. Here is an answer that uses two criteria: 1) the arguments are presented properly, and 2) you now have the tools to evaluate the arguments without help (although guides in other books can also be used as tools). Here is another answer that uses three criteria: 1) the subjects are connected to reality, 2) all good-faith questioning doubters could get consistent answers to appropriate questions they may pose, and 3) all who claimed to disagree would (eventually) contradict themselves (or say nonsensical things) if they were properly questioned. JUST SUPPOSE ... The introductory discussion has been completed. By now the reader should have already made an initial judgment of the significance of the above "misconception" statements -- it has been asserted that they are important statements. If the reader agrees the statements are important, then it is time to question them, look for their flaws, and determine the truth. The adventure starts now as you begin to examine and question these conceptions. Suppose things are not as they seem. Just suppose ... END |
 | |  | |  | |  |
Shattering Illusions
The Exciting Search for Reality
Start your search for reality today...
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |