FAITH, REASON, AND SCIENCE

I just heard a question the other day which I found thought provoking: “Is faith reasonable?” I’m going to answer that question with another: “Is reason faithful?” And I’m going to argue that the answer to the second question is “Yes.”

Reasoning begins from premises which are presumed to be true. They are not known to be absolutely, positively, certainly TRUE. They are just assumed to be true. Their truth value is taken on faith. For example: When Ptolemy designed his geocentric solar system, he took it on faith that the Earth was the center of the Universe. When Copernicus worked out his heliocentric solar system, he took it on faith that the Sun was the center of the Universe. When Newton was working out his physics, he assumed that the Universe was infinite. None of these men had any way of really knowing for certain, they just took it on faith. The history of science is a history of working from premises assumed to be true towards conclusions believed to be TRUE—and later proven to be unTRUE. The cutting edge science that I learned in high school just fifty years ago has almost all of it proven not to be TRUE. I presume that scientist fifty years from today will have proven that current science is not TRUE, it’s just as close as we can get to absolute truth today. I think I read somewhere that in this life we “see through a glass darkly.”

Now I’m going to ask another question: “Is science reasonable?” And we’re going to have to answer that one “If you mean ‘deductively reasonable,’ no.” The scientific method is based on the logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Affirming the consequent goes like this: [1] If it rains, the sidewalk will be wet. [2] The sidewalk is wet, therefore [3] it has rained. The problem is that rain may guarantee a wet sidewalk, but wet sidewalks don’t guarantee rain. How does the scientific method work? Like this: [1] If Einstein’s theory of relativity is true, the light from stars will bend when it passes close to the sun, making the stars look out of place. [2] In 1919 during a total solar eclipse astronomers observed that the stars near the sun looked out of place, therefore [3] Einstein’s theory of relativity is true.

Scientists realize the problem of affirming the consequent, so they attempt to verify their findings by replicating experiments and devising other experiments to test their hypotheses. For example, the bending of light by the sun was only one of three ways that Einstein suggested to confirm the truth of his theory. His other two tests, both based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent, were as successful as the eclipse test. Inductively, if you run enough experiments and all of them affirm the consequent, then the consequent is inductively true. But there’s always the possibility that it’s not TRUE.

Einstein’s theory of relativity was first confirmed by the 1919 solar eclipse experiment. Before the eclipse Einstein was asked what he would think if the eclipse experiment didn’t confirm his theory. He replied “Then I’d feel sorry for the good Lord. The theory is true.” Only it isn’t. Not TRUE, that is. It was just as close to absolute truth as we could get at the time. Quantum theory so disturbed Einstein that he famously said “God does not play dice with the Universe.” To which Neils Bohr is supposed to have replied “Don’t tell God what to do.”

When we talk about scientific theory, we shouldn’t talk about whether the theory is True or False. We should ask “How accurate is it? How close does it come to describing reality?” In Ptolemy’s day, his geocentric universe fit all the available data and was as accurate as humanly possible—it was true but not TRUE. As more knowledge was gained it was determined to be inaccurate and replaced with the more accurate but still not TRUE heliocentric universe. Aristotle’s physics, which was as accurate as possible in his day, gave way to Newton’s physics. Newton’s physics, which was as accurate as possible in his day, gave way to Einstein’s relativity. And Einstein’s relativity is giving way to quantum mechanics. And one day quantum mechanics will give way to something else. We see through a glass darkly. So when we say a scientific theory is true, we don’t mean TRUE; we mean that it gives as accurate a picture of reality as is currently possible.

So where do we find TRUTH? It seems the best we can do is take it on faith, which is not unreasonable at all. In fact faith is one of the cornerstones upon which reason is based.

"THE WEEK'S" STUNNINGLY BAD REASONING

I don’t like to read, watch, or listen to the news, and it’s not because the media concentrates on bad news (like the possibility that an asteroid might wipe out humanity) and trivialities (like Miley Cyrus’s twerking). I don’t like it because I hear very little good analysis and a great deal of fractured logic.

I was flabbergasted by a headline from The Week, an online magazine. The headline read: "The GOP's Stunning Hypocrisy." I suspected from the headline that I was going to find some stunning demagoguery in the article. I did. I counted approximately 21 points made by the article, and only two of them were germane to the stated topic—the GOP’s responsibility for the US tottering on the brink of fiscal disaster.

Of the 21 points made, the only germane point came when the article correctly debunked an advertisement run by an unidentified opponent of Obamacare. According to the article, the ad consisted of a creepy looking Uncle Sam giving a woman a vaginal examination. Since I am relatively certain that Obamacare doesn’t require gynecologists to dress up like Uncle Sam, the ad was obviously an attempt to stampede people into supporting the repeal of Obamacare by appealing to emotion.   

The other valid point was an admission that Obamacare is flawed, with a listing of some of its defects. (Let me hasten to point out that the simple fact of a program's being flawed doesn't make it a bad program. Nothing is perfect, and imperfection does not decisively invalidate a program. It's a question of how flawed it is and whether there is a less flawed alternative available. The jury system is a terribly flawed method of resolving legal issues, but it stands head and shoulders above any other method which has ever been devised).

The remaining points all contained logical fallacies. At the end of this post I’ll catalog the arguments and their flaws, but first I want to challenge the main point of the article—that if we go over the fiscal cliff, it will be because of those villainous Republicans.

I’ll be the first to say that there are some villainous Republicans—probably as many as there are villainous Democrats. But as the article admitted, there are many Republicans who want to work this issue out without going over the fiscal cliff. From the article, it seems that there is a faction within the Republican party who, according to the article, rabidly champion the defunding of Obamacare and are willing to shut down the government to achieve that end. I haven’t done a headcount, but I suspect that there are enough non-rabid Republicans who are willing to work with non-rabid Democrats to hammer out a compromise. The problem comes about because they cannot muster a veto-proof majority. This is tragic because of the next point I'm going to make.

On the other side of the issue is a President who has pronounced himself as steadfastly opposed to compromise as the anti-Obamacare faction of the Republican party. He says he won’t negotiate: “It’s my way or the highway.” If those Republicans who steadfastly oppose Obamacare to the point of government shutdown are insane (the article’s words, not mine), then the Democrat who just as steadfastly opposes compromise is also insane.

As I see it, neither side is insane, they’re just selfish. They have placed winning their point above the welfare of the country. It seems to me that both sides are satisfied to crash the ship of state because both sides believe that they’re going to  derive political benefit from the wreckage. I think that the President is the one who has correctly assessed the political landscape. He sees a win/win situation. His calculus probably goes something like this: Either he proves he is a tough guy by forcing Congress to bow to his will or he comes out looking like the victim of Republican irresponsibility. Whichever happens, the news media vilifies the Republican party, and the Democrats retain control of the Presidency and Congress when Hillary Clinton gets elected and hordes of Republican Congressmen are voted out of office. This is one reason I don’t like reading, watching, or listening to the news. I see selfish politicians making political hay and harming the welfare of the American people in the process.

Now for the article's fallacious reasoning:

[1] Lawmakers could fix all this today if they really wanted to. Really? Lawmakers can’t get anything done expeditiously. The statement is a gross oversimplification of the legislative process.

[2] "Uber-conservative" House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government. All House Republicans? Or just a small group of politicians which the article later calls uber-conservatives. This is the genetic fallacy, attributing to an entire group a trait exhibited by only a portion of the group. Also, these villainous Republicans can't possibly shut down the government. They can be outvoted by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who are willing to compromise. The only person who can shut down the government is the President, by vetoing the compromise or by using his threat of veto to stymie compromise.

[3] Sane Republicans know the uber-conservatives are wrong. This point defeats the previous point by showing it to be false. It is also an argumentum ad hominem. You don’t logically advance your point by calling the opposition names.

[4] Republican Senator Richard Burr calls it "the dumbest idea I've ever heard." More argumentum ad hominem. Actually it is not a dumb idea. If you put your personal agenda above the public welfare, it is a quite rational course of action.

[5] Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer says they are "out of their minds." and are flirting with political "catastrophe." Same critique as point (4) above.

[6] Karl Rove thinks it's stupid, too. Same critique as points (4) and (5) above. Arguments (2) through (6) are actually the same argument stated five different ways.

[7] The uber-conservative Republicans think Burr and Krauthammer aren't true Republicans. Non sequitur. The party affiliation of Burr and Krauthammer is irrelevant to resolution of this mess. The article is going to continue the non sequitur in the next point. Also argumentum ad hominem, calling the

[8] The uber-conservatives are “flat earthers” who don’t think Abraham Lincoln, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan were true Republicans. More argumentum ad hominem, calling the uber-conservatives flat-earthers.

[9] This was the valid point about the tasteless ad depicting Uncle Sam doing a vaginal examination."

[10] The uber-conservatives want to force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds before having an abortion. This is just a continuation of point (9) above which relies on a species of ad hominem argument known as tu quoque, accusing the opposition of doing exactly the same thing they’re advocating against. .  

[11] This point is the admission that Obamacare is flawed.

[12] A USA Today poll shows that only 25 percent of Americans understand Obamacare. Probably a larger percentage than the percentage of legislators who read the bill before passing it. (The point I have just made is an argumentum ad hominem). The author made point [11] to set up point [12].

[12] The confusion is a “golden opportunity for Republicans. Non sequitur. How is it a golden opportunity for the Republican party? The author has already called it “the dumbest idea . . . ever heard,” (point [4]), conceived by people who are “out of their minds” (point [5]) and engaging in behavior which is “stupid” (point [6]).

[13] The super-smart president is engaging in a high-tech outreach strategy like the one he used to get re-elected. Characterizing Obama’s stubborn insistence on government shutdown before compromise as a high-tech strategy seems to me to be quite a stretch. Looks like the author is gilding the lily.   

[14] Republican holier-than-thou hypocrisy doesn't end with Obamacare. Ad hominem and irrelevant. We’re talking about Obamacare, not the human worth of Republicans. Republicans could all be hypocrites and Obamacare could still be a bad idea

[15-21]. More irrelevant ad hominem argument. It reminds me of a maxim attributed to the Roman orator Cicero: "If you have no case, abuse the plaintiff."

THE GUN CONTROL DEBATE: WARPING THE CARPENTER'S RULE

Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle wrote “It is not right to pervert the judge by moving him to anger or envy or pity—one might as well warp a carpenter's rule before using it.”[fn 1] What we saw yesterday in the gun control debate was exactly that—both sides attempting to warp the carpenter’s rule. President Obama appears to announce his gun control proposals surrounded by children. Immediately the NRA responds with an ad accusing Obama of hypocrisy and featuring his children protected by guns. Obama starts the debate with argumentum ad misericordum and the NRA responds with argumentum ad hominem. The cyberverse explodes with photographs of Hitler surrounded by children and purported quotes from Mein Kampf that the best way to trick people into giving up their freedom is to appeal to their love of children. My search of an online version of Mein Kampf failed to discover that quote. [fn 2] It is clear that the leaders on both sides of the gun control debate think that we cannot be swayed by appeals to reason, but must be stampeded into action by appeals to emotion. This begs the question “Are we that stupid?” Apparently President Obama and NRA President Keene think so.

[fn 1] Rhetoric, Book 1 Chapter 1 Paragraph 1354a. http://rhetoric.eserver.org/aristotle/rhet1-1.html.

[fn 2] The text I searched can be found at http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.