Smart People, Bad Ideas

I enjoyed this line:

People worry about the wrong thing at the wrong time and apply their intelligence in ways that doesn’t serve the greater good of whatever they’re trying to achieve.

I've seen this a million times, especially in meetings of people. It's almost inevitable that in any group discussion the main point will be obscured by a flurry of side topics which, if pursued, end up taking the whole discussion down some side street. I want to scream, "No! The main point is back here!" But I'm rarely listened to. :-)

* * *
I'm not so sure C. S. Lewis made the argument that Christianity must be right because nobody has proven it wrong. I recall him very forcibly arguing that atheism is logically unsupportable. He used that as a springboard to argue for the existence of God. Of course, the existence or non-existence of God is something that will never be "proven."

But I would advise some caution in negating the argument, "Since it's not been disproven, then there's a chance it's correct" line of reasoning. That is what's used all the time in the scientific community. The "Big Bang" will never be "proven" ... the best it'll ever achieve is a growing weight of supporting evidence. But it will always remain a theory. And therefore, just because nobody has disproven it, it doesn't make it so.

Note: And please don't tell me that scientists keep "theory" and "fact" neatly separated in their minds -- they don't. Scientists are no different from other people in that they have various agendas (agendi?) they're chasing, and the line often blurs. The theory of evolution is a good example of this -- supporting that theory as fact very nicely serves the agenda of refuting religion and building a sort of secular faith.

That said, Scott Berkun's blog was very well done. Years ago, in college, I took a course in logical argumentation. Not debate, but the various logical constructs and fallacies that one can employ. It was rather eye-opening. Once I was learned about the various fallacies, I was able to see them employed in things like newspaper articles. I don't remember all the different fallacies now, but one I recall is the "false strawman" fallacy. In that fallacy a false hypothesis is posited and then vigorously refuted. Then, upon the negation of that false hypothesis, a second hypothesis is then introduced and assumed true, simply because the other one has been proven false.

• Consider "A"
• I argue that "A" is incorrect.
• Therefore, "B"

Of course, the negation of "A" does not necessarily allow the conclusion of "B." That's the fallacy.

It is tempting to think that someone like C. S. Lewis was employing this "false strawman" argument: "Consider atheism ... I argue atheism is unsupportable ... therefore Christianity." But I'd argue that he did not do that. I'd argue that his logic was more:

• Consider "A"
• I argue that "A" is incorrect.
• Now consider "B"
• Here are my arguments for "B"
• Therefore, "B" is correct

Of course, you may not agree with my assessment. But I know I'm right. I'm always right! :-)

Note: don't go dissin' my boy C. S. ... you know that gets me steamed. :-)

* * *
So the French have voted "non" to the E.U. Constitution. I understand that Holland has its vote this Wednesday. Speculation in the conservative press here is that the advocates of the E.U. will simply keep bringing the issue to a vote until they receive the "oui" vote they desire. Then it will never be subject to a vote again. How's the British press playing the referendum of Sunday?