Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (149514)	12/2/2005 11:48:29 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793800

"Heuristics and Hyperbole: How Not to Argue (Part I) “Experience keeps a dear school,” said Ben Franklin, “but fools will learn in no other.” Unfortunately, experience’s curriculum is comprised almost exclusively of tests. That is why fools like me tend to have rudimentary knowledge about what to do while possessing a Pavlovian understanding of what not to do. Because that is the case I thought I would share my insights on how not to argue. I would much prefer to write a series on the proper way to use logic and rhetoric but I haven’t the faintest clue what that would entail. All I can offer is a set of heuristics, commonsense rules intended to increase the probability of solving some problem, which might help others avoid the tuition costs of experience’s school for debate. A heuristic, as Wikipedia usefully defines the term, is a way of directing your attention fruitfully. Because our cognitive abilities are finite, it often becomes necessary to find simple means of using such resources most effectively. Heuristics are not infallible, but they tend to provide suitable means of "directing our attention more fruitfully" to recurring problems we face. An example of a rule of thumb that I find to be particularly useful in helping to avoid problems is to avoid, whenever possible, willfully stupid people. Intelligence is, of course, a relative concept and everyone (except for the World’s Smartest Person) is just a little less bright than someone else. Willful stupidity, however, is distinct from IQ because it consists of a moral failing: Choosing to be dumber than you have to be. One way to recognize a willfully stupid person is to examine the role hyperbole plays in their rhetoric. Take, for example, those who, like Pulitzer-nominated author Stephen Pizzo, say that “George Bush is the worst president of the United States of America, ever. Hands down.” Whenever I encounter such people I walk the other way for fear that such stupidity might be contagious. For anyone to make such a claim would require a basic understanding of Presidential history, an objective standard for comparing other Presidents to George W, and an ability to make nuanced judgments. In other words, it requires the very skill set that would generally prevent a person from making such an inane claim in the first place. (I should note that this is not just a failing of left-leaning progressives. Willful stupidity is certainly not a partisan issue; we heard the same sort of claims about Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The only difference is that Bush became President during the Age of the Blogosphere when the effects of echo-chamber ranting became more pronounced.) The problem with making such a hyperbolic claim is that such exaggerations are not meant to be taking seriously. When the person who makes them treats them as if it were a rational claim then it shows that they themselves are not worthy of being taken seriously.* The reason this is the case is that hyperbole is a form of metaphor, a figure of speech used to paint one concept with the attributes normally associated with another. As Aristotle explained, metaphors perform a role in learning. In order to understand a metaphor, the hearer has to find something common between the metaphor and the thing which the metaphor is referred to. As the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy explains: [I]f someone calls the old age "stubble," we have to find a common genus to which old age and stubble belong; we do not grasp the very sense of the metaphor until we find that both, old age and stubble, have lost their bloom. Thus, a metaphor does not only refer to a thing, but simultaneously describes the respective thing in a certain respect. This is why Aristotle says that the metaphor brings about learning: as soon as we understand why someone uses the metaphor "stubble" to refer to old age, we have learned at least one characteristic of old age. Metaphor also can be considered to be a balance between the ground and the tension. The ground consists of the similarities between “stubble” and “old age” while the tension of the metaphor consists of the dissimilarities between the two concepts. The problem with hyperbole is that in amplifying the ground (the similarity) you also amplify the tension (the dissimilarities). Even when the ground is strong, hyperbole causes the tension to be increased, thereby weakening the effectiveness of the metaphor. Though some might not see it as an instance of hyperbole, I believe a prime example is the phrase “the holocaust of abortion.” Even those who agree with the similarities between the terms “abortion” and “Holocaust” (the wanton slaughter of innocent human life) find it difficult to overcome the undeniable tension and differences. Although the intentions may be noble, the effect is that it merely produces a weak metaphor that denigrates both tragedies. Hyperbole has a legitimate role in rhetoric. But when you want your audience to focus on the similarities in your comparisons you must downplay the dissimilar aspects. In order to more fruitfully direct their attention to your argument it is best to avoid exaggeration. Metaphors work best when they are fresh, not when they are loud. But even when the arguments fail to convince your audience honing your use of metaphorical language can aid in shaping your own thinking. Sloppy, trite arguments should be avoided not only because they are ineffective but because they encourage you to become a sloppy, trite thinker. * At this point you might be inclined to disagree with this particular rule of thumb. If so, then I recommend you consider how you apply it in your own life. Think of the people whose analysis and judgment you most trust, the ones you consider to be sober and scrupulous thinkers. Now think of the people who are most prone to exaggeration and to making comments that amplify certain aspects out of proportion to reality. I suspect that, like me, you won’t find much overlap between the two groups." evangelicaloutpost.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (149514)	12/2/2005 12:17:26 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

You mean that wasn't a satirical tongue-in-cheek approach by O-Reilly? If not, it's rather amazing. In choir yesterday we were auditioning soloists for "O Holy Night" and one of the boys trying out is a Buddhist. The director asked if his parents would have a problem with his singing this very Christian piece, and he said, oh, no, they know this is about music, not religion. I thought if only people on both sides could be that secure and tolerant. He also said his family celebrates in the "American way", exchanging gifts. Buddhamas, I guess. WHich is why the O'Reilly article made me think of this.

To: Lane3 who wrote (149514)	12/2/2005 12:34:15 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793800

CHRISTMAS WARS (A Ceremony of Carols) By Dr. Sanity REAL CHRISTMAS I'm dreaming of a real Christmas Just like the ones I used to know Where we say the greeting, at every meeting And thumb our noses at Newdow. I'm dreaming of a real Christmas Not just a PC holiday May your days be red and not blue And may someone stop the ACLU Play Music CHRISTMAS WARS Dashing through the courts On a PC holiday O'er the legal torts Listening to lawyers bray Lawsuits all around Making spirits sink What fun it is to sue and fuss and Drive us all to drink Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars PC all the way Oh, what fun it is to trash A Christian holiday Christmas wars, Christmas wars PC all the way Oh, what fun it is to trash A Christian holiday A day or two ago I thought I'd go and shop But when I reached the stores My jaw it nearly dropped Because of lawsuit fears And not wanting to offend Christ was gone from Christmas When will this madness end? Oh, Christmas wars, Christmas wars PC all the way Oh, what fun it is to trash A Christian holiday Christmas wars, Christmas wars PC all the way Oh, what fun it is to trash A Christian holiday Play Music LET US SUE! Oh the weather outside is frightful, And making mischief is delightful, And since we've nothing to do, Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue! This Christmas thing's not diverse enough, And besides we are perverse enough To impose our own point of view, Let us sue! Let us sue! Let us sue! When we finally get our way, How we'll love all that secular bliss ! And you know at the end of the day, That Christmas won't even be missed! As our civilization's dying, And religious folk are cying, It's "Happy Holidays" to you, Or we'll sue! Yes we'll sue! We will sue!

To: Lane3 who wrote (149514)	12/2/2005 8:14:29 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

Well it may be all much ado about little. But is does get those who are not Christians to come forward and illustrate their profound ignorance of so much history. Ms Young blathers on about "it's widely agreed, modern-day bla bla. But it seems there were always those three kings who came with gifts and the story of the 4th century St Nickolas. It is all very amusing. I'm still trying to figure out Ms Young's babble about "to get around that pesky "establishment of religion" problem"