Fallacies and Validity

This post is based on a Debate.org challenge. The question is can a statement based on an informal fallacy be true? The answer I give is it matters how you look at it. For instance, if Jim says what is going on in Ferguson county is appalling--the cops have been given a raw deal--you could say, "I know Jim to be a racist and therefore does not know what he is talking about." This is an ad-hominen attack. There are two ways to look at this--his racism is important in this context, since it is about race, or it is not since it is not about Jim. The first way suggests an informal fallacy can be valid since Jim being a racist might color his worldview. On the other hand, if one says this is not valid, they are saying Jim's being a racist does not matter and you should only listen to his argument. Oddly, the notion of informal fallacies, as opposed to formal ones, suggest such an argument is not valid, but this just doesn't feel right. Of course Jim's racism is important in this situation. My argument is this, Jim's racism does not lead to a valid argument, but can be an important factor nonetheless. It should be weighed as evidence, but cannot be used alone for determining correctness. Extrapolating this we get, no informal fallacy can be used, on its own, to determine the correctness of an argument and in a vacuum of other information cannot be valid. Just because Jim is a racist at other times does not mean he will be this time, but it offers evidence that he might.

On Heaven and Hell

I was watching a debate between Glen Veltum and Emery Wang called "Straight to Hell with Glen Veltum" (with Wang as the host) that discussed the notion God would send people to Hell eternally and how that place should not exist if God is all good. Wang reasons (in my own words) Hell is a place to punish sin, so how can someone suffer eternally in Hell when his sin is finite? Another way of putting it is--Why would God permanently etch sin into the universe (and in fact be a reciprocal cause of it) if he is perfectly loving? To start with Veltum labeled himself as sympathetic to Calvinist thought that, as he describes, God creates wicked people only to be contrasted with the good. There are some problems I see with this at first glance, such as the notion God uses people for the good of others and that he creates people only for them to inevitably suffer. But let's put that aside for this post. Instead let's attempt to address this problem of Hell by reciting some solutions that philosophers have argued for over the years. One is suggested by Irenaeus (that should be the correct spelling) that Hell is not eternal, instead it is a part of a growing process to one day meet and become one with God. Another, suggested I think by C.S. Lewis, is that one only loses what they never had in the first place--a relationship with God. In this manner one only goes to the afterlife without, as Wang put it, a common relationship with God. One would, in this picture, go to a place of cold, quiet despair. As I've already stated the main problem with the fire and brimstone Hell, what supports it is this is the picture of Hell described in the Bible. Ireneaus offers a partial solution, one that is abound in a partial universe, that we are a work in progress with the ultimate goal being God. It does not explicitly (though it does implicitly) state that it is not possible for the fire and brimstone Hell, but I will have to appeal to authority because I do not know if this interpretation of the Bible is accurate. This is my favorite one (maybe because I'm Buddhist) because everybody eventually reaches God and becomes whole and nobody needs to suffer eternally (which coincides with an all loving God). The idea C.S. Lewis puts forth does not seem to be the correct interpretation of the Bible, as Veltum argues, because it is more wishful thinking than anything else. We want to believe while we are in Heaven the damned don't suffer 'too' much (after all they did earn it!), but it does not seem to coincide with the Biblically described Hell. The best solution, which actually addresses Wang's concern that the damned be annihilated, is ingeniously constructed by Dante. His notion of Hell is of eternal suffering, that is until the Final Judgment, when God (through a certain action) destroys Hell and every soul living in it. This seems to be the best interpretation in consideration of Veltum and Wang because it coincides with Biblical literature and it evokes a merciful God. With Dante's interpretation we can see God can possibly be all loving because the suffering in Hell has an end. Although, when he came in the flesh he told people to turn the other cheek (I guess cause his Father would gun them down in the afterlife). If I were to give my own opinion on the matter, I'd say because God is all loving his construction of the Biblical Hell is contradictory. I would hope this is a problem Christians toil with because as Veltum put at one point in the interview (again in my own words) that those in Heaven should not (and indeed possibly may not be able to) think about those in Hell. I cannot accept that a truly compassionate person would be able to 'forget' about others so easily. But I think to talk about this it would be necessary to lay out two types of forgetting--forgetting others in your mind and forgetting others who just don't happen to be there. I would imagine a mother losing her son would sometimes in Heaven lament and wonder where her son could be, but then at another moment laugh with the laughter of the angels.

P.S. If you ever get the chance, find out how Dante destroys Hell, it is truly the work of a great artist.

Best System of Government

What is the purpose of government and what would be the best form for it to function?

Government is made to improve the lives of the governed and to harness their energy collectively as one being. Thus the state's purpose is twofold, first to improve the lives of the people that comprise it and second to preserve its existence into the future. As men are animals at heart, society has deemed it necessary to use force in some circumstances to preserve order. This must be balanced with the inalienable rights that cannot, and should not be taken by force. But, as the purpose of the state is twofold, some people lose rights they should not lose, they become less than people. The ideal state, on the contrary, would leave no such people behind, as is for instance obligated by our constitution through minority rights. Essentially the best way for a society to function is to balance the necessity of the state's existence with the necessity of the individual's existence. A government accomplishes this goal through the values and ideals of its people and to a great degree the structure from which it is constructed. The ideals of Democracy are to let people decide who will run the country and give input into how it will be run. Values are how these ideals come about, but also the structure shapes these ideals. For instance, in a conversation with my father, it became apparent that a Dictatorship cannot promote the same values a Democracy does. The reason for this is a dictator must be highly ambitious to become dictator (much more than one should argue for president) and also must fight others who would like that power on unpeaceful terms. In that way the structure of government allows either for a peaceful or violent overthrow of a government. For a Dictatorship power must come at the expense of life, whereas in a Democracy power is shifted on a consistent, peaceful basis. There may be other forms of government better than Democracy, nonetheless I will argue for some fixes that may improve our current system to be better than it is--that is I'll use that structure as a basis and give suggestions to improve it. A Democracy's best form comes about when everybody gets an equal say in what this country does, including the people who run it (they should weigh other's opinions just as highly as their own). Ideally a Democracy would have a council of people to head the state. People to decree, administer, and enforce laws and regulations. They would have to be accountable to values and morality in some manner or another. Ideally they would be unpaid except by the cost of living. One thing a Democracy could do is not hold regular elections, but rather hold state, local, and federal elections only when people have decided they want to change who is in charge (maybe with some sort of minimum and maximum term limit)--in other words lawmen would be appointed for indefinite terms with some minimum time to serve only to be revoked by a majority of voters or at the end of their allotted term, who would then vote on candidates other than the current serving or vacated seat. The biggest change would be to change the two party system to one where candidates run on the issues they care about and their character that they will get those things done. This is already what is supposed to happen, but you know all too well politicians that put party politics ahead of our nation. It would be wiser to replace the two party system with a multiparty system instead of removing parties completely; but that would require eliminating a winner take all system and for the constituency to heed politics and become informed with reasoned opinions and reasoned reasons. If one believes democracy is the best system of government, then they must believe the animal, both above and below, work better when each smaller animal gets an equal voice on the workings of the larger animal as a whole.

On Great Philosophers

It seems throughout history their were a few minds that changed its course, we can think of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant. How does it come that they rise so far above "the common rabble?" What makes them so great? The biggest thing that they seem to have in common is that they were not afraid to ask tough questions and they didn't just stop at someone else's answer. Two common things seemed to drive these philosophers (especially the first two) and those two things are truth and morality. Some, like Descartes were more seekers of truth and others like Kant were more seekers of morality, but every one of those philosophers studied both. So what is truth and what is morality and how are they related? Truth is the idea that the ideas we have about the world 'in our head' match up with the ideas 'in the world.' Morality seems to be the idea that we act so as to increase some sort of good thing and decrease some sort of bad thing. But why are these concepts so important to philosophers? It seems that wanting to increase good things and decrease bad things is so natural it needs not an argument but just an understanding of language. Morality defines what those good and bad things are and truth sets out ways in which one knows the results of ones actions. If one knows the truth and has a good system of morality, all they have to do is implement it and the world will be better. Thus we come to the final thing that separates the greatest from "the common rabble" and that is will, the will to implement good intentions to turn them into reality. But, why do I put the common rabble in scare quotes, it is because anyone, if given the opportunity can rise above the common rabble, yet they are the common rabble--the greatest philosophers do not overcome the world, they overcome themselves.

Homosexual Marriage

There is a heated debate that rages between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--they cannot agree on whether gay marriage should be allowed under the law or not. But, the reason it cannot come to any resolution is both sides believe they are right without a deeper explanation. Now I do not want to fan the flames, but rather attempt to cool them--I'll define the debate as follows, homosexuals believe it is their right to marry other homosexuals at the same level as heterosexuals due to the 14th Amendment's protection of equal rights and on the other side is the belief in the inherent wrongness of homosexuality and that inherent wrongness corrupts the institution set forth generally citing God. The question should be redefined to ask not whether or not homosexuals should get married, but rather what marriage is and if a homosexual couple fits such a picture. Unfortunately, I do not believe marriage was defined to accommodate this purpose to begin with and so the arguments are left to fill a void unfilled. So what is marriage? It is a familial institution, used to endorse socially the viability and stability of a family that rears healthy and well adjusted children who turn to adults only to continue the institution. With this definition in mind we have to consider under what conditions a child can grow to be strong, independent, and happy. They need nurturing and structure, they need love and support, encouragement and accountability, visions and values. One light to look at the institution is how it is crumbling to some degree, divorce rates are high and unwed pregnancies are high as well. People are marrying with no plan for a family and many are raising children with no spouse or someone else's father. Nurturing, a parent needs to provide material and emotional support for their children and sometimes cannot provide the latter after a long, hard days work coming home too exhausted for that kind of support. Love, a child needs to know he is wanted, that someone is out there who cares--some may find love in a overlooking being, but nearly all need a being who lives on this Earth. Encouragement, a child needs to know that whatever her dreams are there will be people to support her and even if she doesn't reach them to make sure she tries. Values, this is where the institution is key, for the values one lays in marriage have a far reaching effect for that child's own prospects into adulthood. So here are some thoughts, you decide do you vote for homosexuals to marry or do you not?

Religion and Science

The basic premise I will attempt to express in this post is that science's positives are obvious, while its negatives are shrouded and that religions positives are shrouded, while its negatives are obvious. To begin it is necessary to give some sort of definition of what science and religion do. Science is the study of what happens in the material universe by dissecting it and probing it. Religion seeks answers to truths hidden by the obscurity of existence. In their very nature they display the qualities of what they seek and do. This is not to discuss scientists like Einstein and Darwin, but typical scientists, those whose names don't line history books or only do so for people who study a particular field. The former are more of mathematical and logical philosophers than scientists from this author's point of view. Scientists are the ones who send a rocket to the moon, who trace the path of the Higgs boson, who invent complicated MRI machines. They discover what the universe consists of and how we can harness its energy and structure to our advantage (or perceived advantage). These advantages of science are right in front of us, we drive cars, run A/Cs, and store food in refrigerators. But, what about the use of resources on Earth, what about the standard of living that knows no bounds, what about the unimaginable carnage of war. There is something that drives human beings, science can attempt to address such a complex issue, but inevitably fails because of the mindset behind science. The mindset is we can create enough tools to eventually conquer nature herself (think about the desire for immortality through medicine--to fight disease until it is eradicated, predators until they are gone, illnesses until they can be cured, old age until we live longer and longer). The problem with religion is obvious, it can blind people to not see other's points of view, to separate humanity from the animals and other humans, and fool people into false (and potentially harmful) beliefs. But it also has the potential to answer the question of what drives humanity. It can lead us to appreciate what we have and not want more, to believe in other people, and to live in harmony. Science is a powerful tool and religion a powerful drug--if we make the drug so that we increase our happiness and use the tool to enhance that happiness, science and religion can work together to create a more unified and holistic world. That we have power over the world comes not just from our minds and bodies, but from our hearts and souls. Thus, religion is just as important, if not more than science, for we can take all of the coal from this Earth, but eventually it will run out. Only the unseen energy of our life force, where our being comes from, is destined to last.

Reason and Faith

When should one use Reason and when should one use Faith? Are they mutually exclusive? Contradictorily, can one exist without the other?

Reason is using one belief to justify another, while Faith is believing in something without proper justification. In this fashion if one is to believe the Moon is made of cheese, they can do so based on Faith or Reason. If they do so based on Faith, it is because they are seeking to base their system of knowledge on something. If they do so based on reason, it is because they believe in something that causes them to believe in something else. But, when do we know when to use Faith and when to use Reason? Consider the Moon example--it might be wrong to use Faith in this example, for the very reason it would be of no use because Reason dictates that it is probably not so. However, as a scientist, having Faith the Moon is made of the same stuff of Earth is a proper use of Faith, even if it is not conclusive. Once the matter has been resolved, it is based on Reason--this belief of a material Moon goes off of the evidence (other held beliefs), such as the interpretation of its appearance through a telescope. Now I would like to point to a common misperception about Faith in this regard, what the scientist believes in the first case (Faith in a material Moon) is the same as the Christian doctrine of Faith. That a scientist believes the world to be of a certain manner, namely regular, is to have this sort of Faith. A Christian's Faith can cause belief in things that are not rational, even highly unlikely in some cases, but it is of the same order. The second type, and this may even be trivial at some point is the belief that one can understand the world through their senses. This is a lower order of Faith because it requires no leap, there is only what considers natural. The question is how do Reason and the higher order of Faith correlate? To begin with one needs Faith in some system, whether it be morality, rationality, mysticism, personality, or any other sort of mode of believing. Once that is established you can use that system to derive other truths using Reason (the interplay of those Reasons developed from Faith and Reason). Faith is absolute (until Reason disrupts it) and Reason refines it to the situation. However this is not fair to still a higher order of Faith, different from belief in the world or how it works. This is Faith in people, and is often stated as Christian Faith--the belief that scientists are doing their job or the Pope is looking out for our best interest. While this may be helpful, I'm not very certain on it, but what makes it higher order than the first, that the world is such and second that it can be understood as such, is that it suggests we can influence how it is understood as such. Faith is the engine and Reason the wheel, brake, and gas pedal.

The Truth of a Falsity

The debate of realism and anti-realism is that between a system of directly observable truth and that of truth that is either beyond our grasp to understand or beyond our ability to describe and comprehend. To try to get a handle on this debate A.F. Chalmers invites us to consider a card--on one side it says 'the sentence on the other side of this card is true' and on the other it says 'the sentence on the other side of this card is false' - according to Chalmer's book What is this thing called Science pg. 211. What is the nature of this card, it is both false and true. It is false in the sense that what it utters is not consistent with our use of language when viewed on both sides. However it is true in the sense that it exists. A card exists that when read on both sides leads one to realize something paradoxical. What this shows about language is that language has limits in its correspondence to reality. Its limits are reached by the very fact that it is representational. When a person says, "I am hungry," they either do not understand their own appetite or they are hungry. However when a person is feeling hunger there is no truth or falsity in that feeling. They either do feel it or they don't. In the same way a person either feels like saying they're hungry or they do not feel like saying it. Truth value comes by how closely their language correspondence comes to the actual feeling of hunger. Thus there is a gap between truth and reality that would not be apparent in the eyes of realists. This gap is that there is the labeling of a particular concept (in this case feeling) with its linguistic counterpart, how well the description fits depends on several things, including the broadness and accuracy of the language and the capability of the speaker to utilize that language. To extend this to science, we cannot see those things which leave their signature marks of what we call, for instance, atoms and molecules. Thus we must make representations of them, much like that of language, which can either be accurate or inaccurate. If we use Einstein's equations sending a rover to Mars, then we can say his equations are accurate, if we send one to Alpha Centari--even more so. Likewise if they miss their target, they are inaccurate. But, even if we grant they are accurate, the reasons why they are accurate are not necessarily the reasons for them being accurate, but only a good justification. No matter how close science gets to perfect prediction, scientists will always flounder that their knowledge is based on some sort of representation of reality and not reality itself. Reality, like the card, is neither true nor false. It is only representations of reality that can either be true or false.

Neutrality and Justice--Taking Sides

Can a person be truly neutral? Would a person want to be neutral if they could? What is neutrality and why would one want to break from impartiality?

Neutrality seems to be the ability to look at a situation and judge the appropriateness of action based on who is in the right and not who you would like to be in the right. To be neutral on what is right and what is wrong is to be neutral on the conceptions of right and wrong, that is it is not because it is Christian, secular, philosophic, cultural, or individual--but because you have used your judgment to determine its validity. Being neutral requires putting yourself aside even if the situation you are judging puts you in an unfavorable light. One has to have no bias whatsoever. So even on reason itself one would have to be unbiased. If there is no reason, no morals, no sides--whatsoever, then there is obviously something wrong. With this, it seems pretty clear one would not want to be completely neutral. But, then what would one want to be? One would want to be just, that is to render the same judgement for one's brother as for a stranger. But then is that just? No, one would be compelled to treat one's brother with more consideration than a stranger. The reasons are many for the reader to consider and that I will not go into them. Can a person be truly neutral, probably not, would they want to--almost certainly not. A person would want to be neutral insofar as the actions one takes correspond to values that are not person specific. If it is the charge to not harm your enemy, then you will not harm any enemy. If it is the charge to be productive, then all should be productive. This seems to be what the impartiality part of justice is, to apply rules equally, so we shall take sides based on what we deem best and not on any other judgment. If you like this post take it with you, if you don't throw it away, it's just one man's opinion, inform yourself with good ones.