![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I recently got pointed to this post that's really worth reading. It's about the political advantage of encouraging the current anti-intellectualism wave in the US today, with specific examples taken from the response to Katrina.
In her post![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
hedrahelix says:
This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone. Probably the biggest thing that compels me to jump into Internet arguments I'm not in to start with isn't the emotional connection to the subject but bad logic in arguments--not in terms of me wanting to instruct people, but in terms of my seeing somebody say something that seems untrue. I don't consider myself particularly good at spotting this lack of logic--or at least, I'm not an expert. But honestly, I feel that getting into discussions on the Usenet, mbs and lj has helped me get better at it. There was one poster at TORC I will always consider one of the greatest teacher I ever had in this--Apostasy was the name he went by. He had a gift for taking apart an argument and explaining exactly why it didn't work logically, using the name of the logical fallacy and explaining it, in a way that made it clear (I think he was a teacher IRL). It really did make me more able to articulate things I saw wrong with arguments, times when it just didn't seem right but I didn't know how to pull apart the logic.
Once you're aware of this you just see it all over the place. Herehedrahelix is using it to talk about, for instance, Chertoff's attempt to create a false binary about the hurricane: you can either help the people who need help or you can assign blame and talk about what should have been done. You can't do both, so if you choose the latter, you are a bad person. It's just so damn sneaky yet it works appealing to the emotion--nobody is going to choose to assign blame rather than help. The lie is in the idea that you can only do one or the other. But if you put off the questioning until people have calmed down and the facts are no longer fresh chance are you'll get off.
I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way. And it works because I think less and less do people feel confident in demanding a logical argument or articulating what is illogical about an argument. How often do people fall back on "you're taking away my right to speak" when all anyone has done is disagree, or "you're insulting my opinion" when you've pointed out logical holes in their theory? Or claim that it's up to you to prove that their theory couldn't be true when in fact the burden of proof is upon them as the person making the claim (and that means coming up with why we should even be considering the claim, not just assuming the claim is true and then tossing out simpler explanation to make it fit). Or they switch from arguing about a characters' actions to why they don't like the character, or how another character is a nicer guy, seemingly without realizing the difference? I know it's easy to get caught up--like I said, I'm not holding myself up as the model for everyone by a longshot. But I like learning how not to do that.
I think that's why it drives me crazy when this gets lumped into the "everybody should be nice argument." It's been argued many times that a fic writer or artist will not improve if shielded from all criticism. Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes. Only when it comes to argument it seems even more important to make sure people are made to understand logic. With a fic writer or artist the alternative is just bad fics and bad art. With logic you're talking about the ability to recognize truth itself. It's not that everybody has to come to the same conclusion or the same personal opinions, particularly with regards to fandom (there's no logical reason for liking one ship over another, for instance), but that people should be able to tell fact from opinion and know what is canon evidence and what isn't, and be able to distinguish what a character thinks from what the author thinks from what they think, if not for the sake of figuring out what's going to happen in the next book or episode but so that maybe they can do this in life. They're not going to get that in an atmosphere willing to, for instance, teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory as if they're just ideas of equal worth, or where bias is given such focus people are encouraged to think that bias is the only truth there is.
Anyway, there is more to the linked post than that, including very good points about just what a sense of entitlement will get you. But I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures. I certainly don't think that every discussion must turn into an exercise in logic--there's a place for just venting, etc., It's just that if you want to learn about this, the Internet is a good place to do it.
In her post
hedrahelix says:If you've been lucky enough to get a first rate education, when the politicians start their bullshit, you recognize it for the bullshit that it is, and the sooner you see it as bullshit, the faster you can see through it and get to the heart of the matter. The less willing you are to be put off by their stupid shit.
This doesn't even just hold true for politicians, but anyone. Probably the biggest thing that compels me to jump into Internet arguments I'm not in to start with isn't the emotional connection to the subject but bad logic in arguments--not in terms of me wanting to instruct people, but in terms of my seeing somebody say something that seems untrue. I don't consider myself particularly good at spotting this lack of logic--or at least, I'm not an expert. But honestly, I feel that getting into discussions on the Usenet, mbs and lj has helped me get better at it. There was one poster at TORC I will always consider one of the greatest teacher I ever had in this--Apostasy was the name he went by. He had a gift for taking apart an argument and explaining exactly why it didn't work logically, using the name of the logical fallacy and explaining it, in a way that made it clear (I think he was a teacher IRL). It really did make me more able to articulate things I saw wrong with arguments, times when it just didn't seem right but I didn't know how to pull apart the logic.
Once you're aware of this you just see it all over the place. Here
hedrahelix is using it to talk about, for instance, Chertoff's attempt to create a false binary about the hurricane: you can either help the people who need help or you can assign blame and talk about what should have been done. You can't do both, so if you choose the latter, you are a bad person. It's just so damn sneaky yet it works appealing to the emotion--nobody is going to choose to assign blame rather than help. The lie is in the idea that you can only do one or the other. But if you put off the questioning until people have calmed down and the facts are no longer fresh chance are you'll get off.I know it sounds silly to compare an important situation like that to questions of HP canon or other lj drama, but the fact is it usually works the same way. And it works because I think less and less do people feel confident in demanding a logical argument or articulating what is illogical about an argument. How often do people fall back on "you're taking away my right to speak" when all anyone has done is disagree, or "you're insulting my opinion" when you've pointed out logical holes in their theory? Or claim that it's up to you to prove that their theory couldn't be true when in fact the burden of proof is upon them as the person making the claim (and that means coming up with why we should even be considering the claim, not just assuming the claim is true and then tossing out simpler explanation to make it fit). Or they switch from arguing about a characters' actions to why they don't like the character, or how another character is a nicer guy, seemingly without realizing the difference? I know it's easy to get caught up--like I said, I'm not holding myself up as the model for everyone by a longshot. But I like learning how not to do that.
I think that's why it drives me crazy when this gets lumped into the "everybody should be nice argument." It's been argued many times that a fic writer or artist will not improve if shielded from all criticism. Just so a person will never learn to make a good argument or spot a bad one if all arguments are considered equally worldly because we are all special snowflakes. Only when it comes to argument it seems even more important to make sure people are made to understand logic. With a fic writer or artist the alternative is just bad fics and bad art. With logic you're talking about the ability to recognize truth itself. It's not that everybody has to come to the same conclusion or the same personal opinions, particularly with regards to fandom (there's no logical reason for liking one ship over another, for instance), but that people should be able to tell fact from opinion and know what is canon evidence and what isn't, and be able to distinguish what a character thinks from what the author thinks from what they think, if not for the sake of figuring out what's going to happen in the next book or episode but so that maybe they can do this in life. They're not going to get that in an atmosphere willing to, for instance, teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolutionary Theory as if they're just ideas of equal worth, or where bias is given such focus people are encouraged to think that bias is the only truth there is.
Anyway, there is more to the linked post than that, including very good points about just what a sense of entitlement will get you. But I wanted to say how I think that even if one's education has failed one, the Internet is very valuable for getting this type of education--just as the Internet is currently making it possible to get more educated on the world, and proper sentence construction, and other languages and cultures. I certainly don't think that every discussion must turn into an exercise in logic--there's a place for just venting, etc., It's just that if you want to learn about this, the Internet is a good place to do it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
Looooong reply (again!)
Yes. Just last night, I found myself at a friend's house watching an infomercial where some guy was selling his book which was full of "natural cures" for serious diseases: diabetes, cancer, (oh yes, all types of cancer), AIDS, everything out there that makes people afraid and desperate. Why haven't any of us heard of these cures? Because the FDA is in league with the pharmaceutical companies, and they won't label anything a "cure" if pharma can't profit from it (even though the FDA is a Federal Agency, whose employees have to abide by strict rules to avoid conflicts of interest; FDA medical reviewers, for example, cannot be on advisory boards for a pharma company, and owning their stock is definitely out).
What struck me about this person is that he was obviously intelligent, well-educated, and, well-spoken. By listening closely you could see just how carefully scripted his sentences were, and pick out all the places where he took a kernel of truth, and used it to build an argument that didn't hold any water past the first sentence. I lost count of the number of fallacies and badly built arguments he used in the few minutes I was actually watching.
And what was most frustrating was that people were probably actually buying his book. Besides being your run-of-the-mill medical scam taking advantage of desperate people, this particular case was maddening because people in this country, who views education as a right to be provided free to everyone, should have enough critical thinking skills to dismiss this person's claims as obviously unfounded.
And that was clearly not the case. I have the advantage of always having lived in large metropolitan areas, surrounded by people who received an adequate (or better) education. Unlike the writer of the post you linked to, I was born to a middle class family, who valued education above almost everything else, and made certain that I would know how to think for myself by the time I was old enough to make any sort of important decision. That's a pure accident of birth. Just as easily, I could have been born in a situation where merely learning how to read was a challenge.
And I'm now rambling, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is no surviving in this world anymore - even in the absence of natural disasters - without a good education, whose value, when it all comes down to it, is to teach people how to think and how to assess the world around them.
That includes politics, and all the comments made by politicians (a topic I try to stay away from, at least on LJ, though I've been less than successful lately :-) Your point about intelligent design is another very good example. A few short years ago I would have been shocked that there are people who do not understand the difference between an established theory that has withstood two centuries of testing and is now regarded as scientific fact, and a "theory" someone cooked up by saying that, well, it's possible after all that the world was created by an intelligent being. Or by Albus Dumbledore, who happened to sneeze particularly vigorously one day while holding his wand :-/
The issue of debate in fandom is another one that I try to temper my response to. It just doesn't seem to me that analysing an argument to show exactly where it breaks down would be well received (and the few times I tried sort of reinforced that idea!). I've been reading and occasionally posting at Talk Origins ever since the usenet days, and as this is a common and respected strategy there, I figured I'd try it in fandom. I've since stopped doing that because, really, I don't have time to keep up with the fall back, or to keep explaining that it has nothing to do with being "nice". Now, I just step back and maybe go write about in my LJ, or just dismiss whatever it is altogether. Cowardly, but true!
From:
Re: Looooong reply (again!)
I have heard about this guy. In fact, I remember seeing him lampooned on the Daily Show--but see, that points to a gulf too, because on the Daily Show it's so ridiculous it can just be mocked, but then there are people who really want to believe these things. I feel the same way about that guy who's constantly writing about the "conspiracy" to make people believe that weight has anything to do with health. That too is supposed to be about big pharm making money off of diet pills (when really, don't they make far more money off of all the medicines for illnesses weight can make worse). It sounds good, but it's not.
But then, one of my favorite shows is Penn & Teller's Bullshit, so it's no wonder I like this stuff!
Now, I just step back and maybe go write about in my LJ, or just dismiss whatever it is altogether. Cowardly, but true!
I completely understand how you feel! But still there's always part of me that's confused when people don't appreciate this. I don't mean somebody swooping in and telling them their argument fails, but honestly explaining how it breaks down and what they're really saying.
From:
Re: Looooong reply (again!)
I think that explains a lot of things, actually - being willing to believe a simple explanation exists too easily, even when all the clues point to something more complex.
And I'm going to have to watch more TV, I think :-) I was absolutely shocked by that infomercial, but no one else there paid it much mind. In fact, I got a lot of "what's the big deal" looks for spluttering in indignation because, apparently, everyone expects this sort of ad to make outrageous claims, and no one really believes infomercials. I just can't help but think there are people who do believe them - after all, everyone else watching with me also had the benefit of a good education and the capability to recognise an outrageous claim for what it is.