I was at a speech given by Jonah Goldberg last night. While there were a couple of good questions, unfortunately, there was only one that was asked by someone that was not Conservative. Sadly, I don’t remember the exact wording (I just don’t have that good of memory), but the question was along the lines of, You argue that Conservatives have ideologies, but so do progressives. But, Conservative ideology has a huge number of fundamental Christians, how do you allow for the Christians to believe the Earth is only 2000 years old? How do you allow them to deny logic, science, facts, etc? To deny such things as Global Warming? (I think he did say Global Warming, though the new talking point is Climate Change.)(In italics because it is not a direct quote)
While Jonah gave a completely reasonable response, consisting largely of, Liberals are just as bad as Conservatives. Jonah cited the examples of Vaccines, and two others which are not coming to me right now. Further he argued that unlike those that believe that Vaccines cause problems, those that believe the Earth isn’t that old, don’t cause a problem.
If I find the video I’ll post a link to it, but it is not up yet.
I however have a partially different response.
The questioner is presenting a False Dichotomy and an ad hominem. He exposes his bias with his question, which is fine, I also have a bias. But, it is a False Dichotomy because he essentially says, agreeing with me is logic, not agreeing with me is not logic. That is not the only two possible options. And calling all your enemies illogical is just an attack, even if not an over the top one, like calling someone Fascist.
To the question, denying a logical assumption made by others is not the opposite of logic. Logic is unique to the individual, and having a reason is logic. It’s the problem economists fight with. It is completely logical for a person to kill themselves. It is completely logical to kill someone else. Attempting to claim I am logical, everyone that disagrees is illogical, shows arrogance and an in ability to see from someone else’s point of view, even if it is logic. In Russia, when it was the Stalinist block, farmers were “paid” based on the number of fields they plowed. The result was, they would dig at the proper length around the outside, where someone was likely to check. But they would raise the blade as they got towards the center, allowing them to move faster. This was completely logical from their perspective, even if it resulted in a poor harvest later.
Further, “facts” which in science means something completely different than in the rest of the universe, like law, fact just means that until further evidence arrives no one is going to study it. My favorite example is, while it may be possible that apples are going to rise up and kill us all tomorrow. It would be a waste of resources to study this. In science, it is the point of science to argue, it gets that from its philosophical roots. As long as someone is willing to give resources to investigate a fact, the fact will be investigated. The debate is NEVER over.
Note: none of this has to do with arguing against or for global warming, or any of the other specific things the questioner mentioned. I will not argue that on this thread.
(Best question of the night: Are superheroes innately fascistic?)
(On review, this might belong in the Rant House, if a moderator feels this is true, I will follow the commentary there, happily.)