| Chapter 2:
ARGUMENTS
AND LANGUAGE However elegant and memorable, brevity
can never,
in the nature of things, do justice to all the facts of a complex
situation
. . . . Abbreviation (though) is a necessary evil, and the
abbreviator's
business is to make the best of the job which, though intrinsically
bad,
is still better than nothing. He must learn to simplify, but not to the
point of falsification. He must learn to concentrate upon the
essentials
of a situation, but without ignoring too many of reality's qualifying
side
issues. In this way he may be able to tell, not . . . the whole truth .
. . but considerably more than the dangerous quarter-truths and
half-truths
which have always been the current coin of thought. Aldous Huxley,
Brave New World Revisited Recognizing Arguments In Chapter 1 we saw how logicians use the term argument in a technical way to refer to a formalized presentation of a reasoning trail. In everyday life, people argue about all sorts of things, and what they argue about is usually much messier and more involved than the neatly packaged formalizations found in logic texts. To conduct logical analysis we must be abbreviators in the sense described by Huxley above. However, abbreviated logical formalizations can be very important. We also saw in Chapter 1 that when something is very important to us, it is useful to break up a complex appeal into pieces, to analyze a perplexing situation into simple parts to see if they fit together correctly. This implies that we
are not just
interested in
analyzing quarrels or arguments as in "John and Kym got into an
argument."
A logical argument is not limited to disagreements between one person
and
another, or between one group and another. Arguments can also be
objective,
formal presentations of reasoning trails that are studied by people who
already accept the conclusions, as in science and mathematics, where
the
goal may be shorter, tighter, more elegant presentations of systems of
belief. In mathematics and logic, proofs or arguments can also be
created
like an artist creates a beautiful statue, to try to say something
clearly, to
bring
out a perspective, or to make a discovery for the appreciation of
others. You will be
given a taste
of this creative activity in some of the later chapters on symbolic
logic (9,
10, 11), where your goal will be to create proofs (symbolic trails of
reasoning) for arguments we already know to be valid.
Analytic thinking is often contrasted with synthetic or holistic thinking. When we analyze, we take a whole and break into its parts (some would say we destroy it). In synthetic thinking, we take or are given parts and details and (if we are lucky, brilliant, or insightful) create a perspective that brings the parts into a new light. Synthetic thinking is often associated with so-called artistic thinking, and some philosophers have worried that too much analytic thinking ruins one's ability for synthetic thinking. This may be so, and we will adopt the view that both of these ways of thinking are valuable tools that are part of our potential as human beings, and that like any tool, using one for every task is surely a mistake. Clearly though, as the examples from Chapter 1 show, many people reason too holistically for some situations -- they just react without stopping to see whether they have good reasons for their reactions. In Chapter 1 we made life easy for you by structuring arguments into conclusions and premises. In this chapter, you need to begin the process of recognizing different types of arguments and formalizing them. You will then practice argument recognition throughout the remaining chapters of this book. In formalizing arguments and learning other analytic techniques presented in this book, you will actually be learning more than specific skills. You will also be learning a strategy or discipline of mind with which to face complexity, a most valuable ability in a world of increasingly abundant diverse ideas and opinions. Today you will often hear employers speaking of a person’s “information processing skills.” In our Internet age the information available to us often appears to be overwhelming. To be able to sort out and “corral” this information into to useful principles and concepts and to be able to reason through it all to take appropriate actions are major skills that require being able to create abstractions and abbreviations. In a democracy, we assume also that a clash of ideas and opinions is necessary for better ideas to emerge, but we also assume that better ideas can only emerge if the exchange of ideas is rational and focused.(1) To evaluate an argument's reasoning we must first recognize its parts. Every argument has its "bottom line" or "main thrust," a basic point that its author wants to persuade us to accept. We call this basic point the conclusion. The elements of persuasion, or the reasons given for us to accept the conclusion, we call premises. In general, arguments have a tone like "This is so (conclusion), because that is so (premises)." Or "Because this is so and this is so (premises), therefore you should believe such and such (conclusion)." In recognizing an argument's parts, as a strategy of analysis, the first thing you should do is avoid the temptation to react to individual statements. (Remember the problem with 1-7 in Chapter 1.) Try to understand before you judge. Ask yourself what the ultimate point of a passage is; try to determine what the author is trying to get us to accept. What is the main point of the argument? Consider the following two arguments and write on some notebook paper what you think the conclusion is for each one. EXAMPLE 2-1 We all know a democracy must guarantee freedom of speech to all citizens. However, some citizens of a democracy use their freedom of speech to attack the concept of a democracy. At times of great trial, be it war, economic upheaval, or confusion brought on by rapid change, such attacks can pose a serious threat to a democracy's survival. Thus, a true democracy will always be vulnerable to destruction from within. EXAMPLE 2-2 The Bush administration's justification for our military role in the Middle East was that a small, defenseless country, Kuwait, was brutally invaded by Iraq, which possessed the fourth largest military force in the world. Should such a justification have been accepted by anyone? Syria invaded Lebanon, and we did nothing. Turkey invaded Cyprus, and we did nothing. Israel invaded and pirated land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and we did nothing. The Chinese government brutalized a blossoming democratic movement, and we not only did nothing, we encouraged it by continuing business and trade as usual. The former Soviet Union intimidated its Baltic neighbors, and we did nothing. Besides, Kuwait was a backward dictatorship itself, stole oil from Iraq, and lied to the World Bank about their monetary support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Not to mention that until shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait we were supporting Iraq militarily. Notice that these passages have the tones we talked about above. The first one follows the pattern of "Because this is so and this is so (premises), therefore you should believe such and such (conclusion)." The author of this argument helps us identify the parts of the argument by using the conclusion indicator word 'thus.' The conclusion of the first argument is, "Thus, a true democracy will always be vulnerable to destruction from within." The use of language to communicate is not always successful and we need all the help we can get in understanding each other. Arguments often have "neon lights." Conclusion or premise indicators, or both, highlight parts of the argument. Examples of conclusion indicators are: therefore, so, hence, thus, accordingly, consequently, it follows that, we can infer that, which entails that, which implies that, it is clear that, it is obvious that. Examples of premise indicators are: because, since, in as much as, given that, for the following reasons, follows from, may be inferred from, may be deduced from, may be derived from. Here are some more
examples similar to 1-1.
Notice how we are helped to see the argument structure (premises and
conclusion) by indicator words. A
necessary condition for
universal moral judgment is the existence of universal moral
principles. But
the establishment of universal moral principles is possible if and only
if
there is an objective method for ethical judgment. If there is one
clear
anthropological fact it is that of cultural relativism -- there are
vast
differences amongst the world's cultures as to what is considered right
and
wrong. So,
we don't have the right to judge those societies that still
practice female circumcision. EXAMPLE 2-4 We do
have a right to judge any culture
that still practices female circumcision. Because justice is justice and
fairness is fairness. It does not matter that judgments of right and
wrong are
culturally relative. Slavery is wrong, period. It does not matter that
it was
once popular. We have learned over the millennia that there is no
inherent
difference between the so-called races of people on this planet. We
have also
learned that there is no inherent intellectual difference and moral
worth between
the sexes. EXAMPLE 2-5 If you
are the chief of
intelligence for a tyrant, then you will always be in trouble. This is so,
because if you tell the tyrant the truth and it contradicts his
sense of
infallibility, you will be in trouble. If you tell the tyrant only what
he
wants to hear, time will inevitably expose your lies and you will be in
trouble. A chief of intelligence either has to tell the truth or lie. The word
'so' indicates that the author of 2-3
wants this sentence to be his or her main point (conclusion) supported
by all the other sentences as premises. The word 'because'
indicates that the author of 2-4
wants the first sentence to be his or her main point (conclusion) and
that all the sentences after 'because' are the reasons for his or her
conclusion. Like neon lights, the phrase "this is so, because" is
particularly helpful in 2-5.
The word 'so' is a conclusion indicator and the word 'this' refers back
to the first sentence. So we know the first sentence is the
intended conclusion. Then the word 'because' shows us that the
remaining sentences are premises. Argument 2-2 is much harder to formalize but if you think about it carefully you can see that it follows the pattern "This is so (conclusion), because that is so (premises)." This argument is typical of the much less formal situations that we find in everyday exchanges of ideas. There are no neon lights to tell us exactly what the author has in mind as a conclusion. In fact, the conclusion is not even explicitly stated, and we must interpret the author's major point. Identifying the conclusion in such passages tests your communication ability -- particularly your understanding of the language used. It also will often draw on your experience or knowledge of what is being discussed. However, because logical ability and language ability are very closely related, the most important thing you can do to enhance your reasoning ability and your own defensive verbal skill is to learn to read and write better. But even this will not ensure successful communication between people. Often, two people can use language correctly and still not understand each other due to the complexity of their topic, their different perspectives, cultures, values, or different experiential backgrounds. In such cases, communication is an ongoing process that takes work. Often follow-up discussion is needed, and sometimes we just need to ask the author of an argument: "What is your point?" "What conclusion do you want me to accept?" What is the author's major thrust in the second argument? The author obviously doesn't think much of the first Bush administration's (George W's father) justification for our involvement in the Persian Gulf War. The Bush administration's position is stated and then followed by the question, "Should such a justification have been accepted by anyone?" This is a rhetorical question, a question that implies its own answer. In this case the implied answer is "No." The author is saying that no one ought to have accepted such a justification, and following the rhetorical question are the author's reasons why we should not accept such a justification, along with an implied premise that our policy did not appear consistent. In such cases we must paraphrase the implied conclusion and premise; we must restate it in our own words in an attempt to capture the essence of what is implied as best we can. Here is one possible formalization: EXAMPLE 2-2a Conclusion (implied): The Bush administration's justification for our military role in the Middle East was weak. (We shouldn't believe that the only reason for our involvement was that a small, defenseless country, Kuwait, was brutally invaded by Iraq, which possessed the fourth largest military force in the world.) Premise (also implied): This justification did not make sense in light of our past and present actions and was too simplistic in terms of Iraq-Kuwait relations. Premises (remaining): Syria invaded Lebanon, and we did nothing. Turkey invaded Cyprus, and we did nothing. Israel invaded and pirated land from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and we did nothing. The Chinese government brutalized a blossoming democratic movement, and we not only did nothing, we encouraged it by continuing business and trade as usual. The former Soviet Union intimidated its Baltic neighbors, and we did nothing. Kuwait was a backward dictatorship, stole oil from Iraq, and lied to the World Bank about their monetary support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Until shortly before Iraq invaded Kuwait we were supporting Iraq militarily. We could disagree about whether this is an accurate presentation of the author's intentions. We could argue about it, and we could nit-pick over some of the words used. But in most cases the context and the language used imply at least a focused range of interpretations that are close to saying the same thing. The interpretation of arguments is not always a black-and-white process and like most things in life sometimes there is considerable room for reasoned disagreement. The point is to get down a formalization in the form of "This is so (conclusion), because that is so (premises)." Then we can begin to discuss whether the formalization is accurate and evaluate the argument. As soon as the argument has more focus, then we can be more disciplined in analyzing its parts and the inferential linkage between its parts.(2) Are the premises relevant to the conclusion? Do they give us good reasons to accept the conclusion? What is the relationship between the conclusion and the premises? Is a deductive or inductive relationship asserted? Are the premises true? Notice
that a fully
logical approach to such an important matter as a war decision would
require
slowing our thinking down considerably. First we
ask, what is the
argument? What is the conclusion? What are the premises? Second,
we judge the reasoning. If the premises of
2-2a are true, do they provide a good basis for
the
conclusion? Even if they do, do we know the premises
are true? Do you know if it is true that
Other Uses of Language Before we go any further, we must recognize the obvious point that we don't argue all the time. Often, in my logic class, after a few days of analyzing suspect advertisements similar to those in Chapter 1, some of my students conclude that they can now find bad arguments everywhere they look. With excited anticipation of reward and confirmation that they have now achieved a special status above the masses, they sometimes come into my office after class and share with me what they consider obvious blunders of human reasoning. "Isn't this the stupidest thing you have ever heard?" one might say. Then I usually have to disappoint them with something like "Yes, based on what is considered to be scientific fact, those beliefs are silly. But there is nothing wrong with the logic, because there isn't any; I don't see a presentation of an argument. Perhaps there is one I am not seeing. Why don't you look at it again for homework, and see if you can interpret an argument in terms of premises and a conclusion." I respond this way because often the passages found by students do not appear to be arguing about anything, but rather are alleged descriptions, statements of belief or opinion, or explanations, or bare value judgments without any support offered that the descriptions are true, the explanations the best possible, or the value judgments acceptable. Descriptions can be false, explanations can be incorrect, and values poor or unacceptable, but they are not arguments. For an argument to be bad we must have a group of statements that can be analyzed into premises and a conclusion, where an inferential claim is made that the conclusion, although controversial, should be accepted because of the evidence offered in the premises. Here are some examples of the use of language that are not arguments: EXAMPLE 2-6 The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old. This is a lengthy time, and roughly half the stars in our galaxy are younger than the Sun. We should also keep in mind that at least half the stars in our galaxy are part of binary star systems. (Description) EXAMPLE 2-7 The World Trade Center towers collapsed completely on 9/11, because the large impact load destroyed the fire resistant foam protecting the steal, and the fire and temperature (2000 degrees F) then caused a failure of the truss system supporting several floors, and the floors below could not support the tremendous weight of the floors falling from above. (Explanation) EXAMPLE 2-8 Homosexuality is immoral. I can't help being totally disgusted when I see two men walking down the street with their arms around each other. I retch when I can't help imagine what they do behind closed doors. (Value judgment) The first statement is a typical factual description of what astronomers believe to be true about our sun and galaxy. Although scientists believe there is an enormous amount of evidence to substantiate these statements as true, none of that evidence is presented here. So, there is no argument. However, these statements could become part of an argument, such as when the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence is discussed or when these statements are challenged by very conservative fundamentalist Christians who do not believe the universe can be this old. Here is an example of how some of the statements in 2-6 can be used as part of an argument: EXAMPLE 2-6a The Sun is about 4.6 billion years old. This is a lengthy time and because the Earth was formed with the Sun, it follows that on Earth intelligent life took at least this long to evolve. Notice that the factual statements are now linked by a conclusion indicator (it follows that) to a relatively bold and controversial generalization, that intelligent life on Earth required billions of years to evolve. The use of the word because in 2-7 shows that language
is flexible and words that we have designated
as
conclusion and premise indicators do not always function as indicators
for parts of arguments. In an explanation, that part of a statement
that
is in the same apparent location of a conclusion is usually an accepted
fact regarding an objective event that has taken place and is not
controversial.
In 2-7 no one is arguing
about whether the World Trade Center towers really collapsed.
This horrifying scene was seen by millions of people. But there
was much engineering controversy for several months after 9/11 on the
exact causal details. So, here what follows the 'because' is much more
controversial than that accepted fact stated before the
'because.' In an argument, the situation is reversed: what
follows the premises
indicators
should be less, or at least no more, controversial than the conclusion.(3) Thus, a rule of thumb for separating arguments from explanations is to first formulate the passage into the form "X, because Y." Then ask yourself if X is more controversial than Y. If the answer is yes, then it is most likely an argument. If the answer is no, then it is most likely best analyzed as an explanation. In 2002, President Bush said that the
9/11 World
Trade Center attack occurred in part because it was "clear that the FBI
and the CIA were not cooperating." Bush's statement would be
classified
as an explanation, not an argument. Note the form -- X happened
(the
9/11 attack) because Y occurred (lack of FBI and CIA
cooperation).
Note that X is not controversial. No one was arguing that 9/11
was
a myth or hallucination. It was a very big tragic fact for the
United
States. What might have been controversial was Bush's
explanation,
but he offered no argument for it. It is easy to get confused
on whether
something is an argument, an explanation, or a value judgment, because
arguments and explanations can contain value judgments.
But consider this example. A few days after 9/11, the
very
conservative religious fundamentalists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robinson
seemed to
assert on Robinson’s TV show that an angry God, angry at the "I really believe that the
pagans,
and the abortionists and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians
who are
actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U.,
People for
the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I
point the
finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’" Clearly, even though value
judgments and
controversial beliefs are involved, this exchange can be rendered as an
explanation. EXAMPLE
2-9 The destruction of the X, because Y X = The destruction of the
Y = Because God was angry
at the Because the X-part is not
controversial,
we have an explanation. The Y-part
implies a value judgment – that abortion, feminism, and the acceptance
of
homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle are wrong.
But overall we still have an explanation. Some students will be
confused because the
value judgment part is so controversial that they conclude this has to
be
argumentative and hence an argument. No,
argumentative yes in the sense of "inviting" an argument, but an
argument no. Because
there is no argument yet. If Falwell was
challenged on how he knows what God feels about abortion, feminism, and
homosexuality, he might give the following argument. EXAMPLE
2-10 Abortion, feminism, and
the acceptance of
homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle are wrong, because there are
many
passages in the Bible that make clear God’s feelings on these matters,
and the
Bible is the word of God. Now we have the argument: Conclusion: Abortion,
feminism, and the
acceptance of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle are wrong. Premise: Because there are
many passages
in the Bible that make clear God’s feelings on these matters and the
Bible is
the word of God. Notice the key difference
between 2-9 and 2-10. Falwell
is not trying to prove
that destruction of the World Trade Center towers by terrorists
occurred (2-9),
but he is trying to prove that abortion, feminism, and the acceptance
of
homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle are wrong (2-10).
Often, relatively vague passages can be analyzed by testing different interpretations. For instance, consider the following: EXAMPLE 2-11 There are no hummingbirds in this area. We haven't seen any hummingbirds all day. Is this passage a description, an explanation, or an argument? It is probably not a description, because a link of some sort seems to exist between the two statements. But is it an explanation or argument? Should we interpret this passage to mean: EXAMPLE 2-11a (We can conclude that) There are no hummingbirds in this area. (Because we know that) We haven't seen any all day. (Argument) Or EXAMPLE 2-11b (Because) There are no hummingbirds in this area. That's why (explains the fact that) we haven't seen any all day. (Explanation) Like a blurry picture we are given no context for 2-11, so we must imagine a context in which this statement was made. There are at least two possibilities. For an argument (2-11a), perhaps some people have been hiking in a forest and they notice that no one has seen any hummingbirds. One of the members of the group infers (generalizes) from this accepted fact that there are no hummingbirds in this area. For an explanation (2-11b), we can imagine someone noticing that they have not seen any hummingbirds all day and asking other members of the group why this is so. Another member then explains that there are no hummingbirds in this area. This example shows that although recognizing arguments will not be a simple black-and-white affair, we can have guidelines for analysis and discussion. In both cases, the statement, "There are no hummingbirds in this area" is more controversial than "We have not seen any all day." But in a context of persuasion, when we are identifying arguments, we are looking for a controversial statement that is supported by reasons for accepting that statement. Because in 2-11b, no support is offered for the statement "There are no hummingbirds is this area," this interpretation is not an argument. Context, background knowledge, experience, and cultural differences can all play roles in interpreting, recognizing, and understanding arguments. Recognizing arguments is part of the general task of intelligent and respectful communication, and it will often involve some work. Furthermore, in today's shrinking, interconnected, multicultural world we may not always be successful. However, we at least have a general guideline to help us with some of this complexity. Although technical arguments in logic, science, and mathematics do not always involve controversy in the same sense that we have been discussing, in recognizing arguments in the popular media the focus is most often on controversy. So, in recognizing arguments a helpful guide is to ask, "Is a controversial statement made (the conclusion), and is some alleged support offered for the acceptance of that statement (the premises)?" Speaking of controversy, clearly, discussions of values and moral judgments are a vital but argumentative part of life. In 2-8 the volatile issue of sexual orientation is raised. But is this an argument? Although it appears to have something like a conclusion, a bottom line that the author wants us to accept -- " Homosexuality is immoral" -- the statements that follow do not appear to be supporting premises, but rather elaboration of the author's values in sexual matters. No reasons are offered for why we should have the same reaction to the homosexual life-style, or why we should not accept it as a permissible life-style, even if we share the author's heterosexual orientation. At this point, 2-8 is only a bare value judgment and today an extremely controversial one. Consider that a person making this statement today would probably be criticized for bigotry or having views that discriminate against gays. Times change and values change. In the 1960s almost every state in the United States made homosexual sex illegal and castration was the punishment for homosexual sex in seven states! What is called today "gay rights" was non-existent. No federal or state laws protected gays from job or housing discrimination. It does not follow from this example that
values
cannot be argued about, that they are merely expressions of subjective
feeling, time, and culture, and that they cannot become part of
reasoned discussion.
Values can change for good reasons, involving knowledge of new facts
and progress and growth in better understanding. Socrates (470-399 B.C.), one of the first Western philosophers, began his famous questioning with value issues. Prior to his gadfly antics in the city streets of Athens to make people think, Socrates was a soldier. He witnessed firsthand the violence and cruelty of which human beings are capable. Prior to Socrates, the philosopher Protagoras (ca. 485-410 B.C.) had claimed that the values and virtues that a society deem good are only so relative to that society, and it is presumptuous of a culture to believe that its way of seeing things is the only right way of living. The values we possess, according to Protagoras, are the result of our cultural conditioning and individual circumstance; what is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. Socrates agreed with Protagoras that most people are presumptuous to believe that their values are the best, especially when we see that if they are forced to defend them, the reasons they give are very weak, usually based only on appeals to tradition, authority, or popularity. But because of his life as a soldier, Socrates reasoned that although there may be many different good ways to live, surely there are also many bad ways to live. If so, he reasoned, what general idea about what is "good" enables us to judge some particular way of life as good or bad? If there are no general principles that all people ought to accept, then "anything goes," and there is no such thing as a bad way to live. Protagoras and Socrates ultimately disagreed. Protagoras was what philosophers call a relativist. Relativists believe that objectivity is a myth; that there are no independent facts or values that everyone ought to accept; that truth and value are relative to the individual and cultural context. Protagoras believed that we cannot reason about values, we can only attempt to creatively persuade one another to see a way of looking at things. For Protagoras, life is a battle of perspectives and the goal of all discussion is more like art than science and logic -- to mold reality from a particular perspective and to persuade others to adopt this perspective. Socrates was not a relativist; he established the foundation for normative ethics. The normative ethicist believes that some values (norms) can be judged as better than others; that values can be part of an objective rational discussion. Many of my students, when hearing this
issue for
the first time, conclude that they are relativists, because they
believe
that Protagoras was right, that cultures do differ, and that we "ought"
to learn to respect and be tolerant of other life-styles. But a little
reflection shows that they are not relativists. They are really
adopting
a normative principle: We ought to value, learn from, and be tolerant
of
different ways of living. A consistent relativist is committed to
saying
that this principle is no better than one that says we ought not to
value,
learn from, and be tolerant of different ways of living.(4) The basic principles of
democracy are not based on
relativism. Generally
people who support democracy as the best form of
government
are doing so because like Socrates they believe we can give some
meaning to the
phrase “a really right way of living.” Although
not all supporters of democracy believe in a
personal God
(generally Buddhists, who don't believe in a personal god, also support
democracy as the best form of
government),
often political leaders in the Those
who support freedom
and democracy do not support absolute freedom. Relativists
argue that because we can’t justify any belief
or value as
absolutely true, “anything goes.” But
one can support freedom and respect for diversity but still call for a
limit to
tolerance. For instance, in September
of 2004 Chechen separatists (a “band of terrorists” for most of the
world)
held about a 1,000 children hostage at a school in the Russian town of For instance, most normative ethicists would argue that there is a huge difference between preference for different ethnic foods and the issue of female circumcision discussed in examples 2-3 and 2-4 above. Many normative ethicists would say that food preference (excluding perhaps cannibalism) is indeed a matter of subjective taste. But whether or not “genital mutilation” is justified or not as a cultural practice is a debatable issue. For a normative ethicist we ought to be able to use our brains, discuss this issue, rise above our own cultural perspectives and decide objectively if such a practice is permissible as simply a cultural variation or a violation of universal human rights and wrong. As an illustration that it is possible to reason about values, we can formulate the following where the evaluation of the homosexual lifestyle is part of an argument. EXAMPLE 2-12 The Bible says that homosexuality is a crime against nature and a crime against God. All crimes against nature are immoral and ought to be prohibited. So, homosexuality is immoral and ought to be prohibited. Formulated this way, we now have an
argument for
a focused discussion. Are the premises true? Does the Bible really say
this about homosexuality? Even if it does, why should we accept the
Bible
as authoritative on this issue? Although there do appear
to be passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22
and
20:13 for the Old Testament, and Romans 1:26-27 in the New Testament),
critics
of this approach to morality will point out that Leviticus 25:44
appears to
approve of slavery in general and Exodus 21:7 appears to approve of the
selling
of daughters into slavery in particular. Even if the premises are true, do they offer good reasons (in the sense of a valid argument) for the conclusion that homosexuality is immoral and ought to be prohibited? To apply what we have learned thus far about arguments, the focus of discussion should not be on the reasoning of the argument. This argument is valid; if the premises are true, then the conclusion is also true. But the premises are clearly controversial, and most normative ethicists would say that the issues raised in the premises are clearly questions of ultimate value that need some sort of supportive evidence before we have good reasons to accept them.(5) These premises would need to be conclusions of other arguments. The important point is that there are "bare" unsupported value judgments and value judgments that are part of arguments or explanations. We are interested in recognizing arguments, so that focused discussion is then possible. Here are some other examples of evaluations that are not yet part of arguments: EXAMPLE 2-13 I don't like sports. I don't like baseball, basketball, boxing, football, or golf. Every weekend the major TV networks in the United States construct their programming to torture me. No matter what the season there is some sort of "game of the week" that is supposed to be the focus of everyone's attention. And it is getting worse. Now, no matter what the country or time of day, there is some big game or contest that one cannot escape, be it a quiet rural neighborhood in central Kansas, a pub in Great Britain, or a hotel lobby in Japan. Ahhhh!! EXAMPLE 2-14 As Americans we believe in our (European) cultural heritage, not just because it is "ours," but because it is good. But our ability to preserve and transmit that common heritage depends on the continued existence of a majority population that believes in it. The first one (2-13) presents no reasons why we should not like sports, so it is not an argument. The second one (2-14) is an interesting case that deserves elaboration. The first statement contains the value judgment, "America's European cultural heritage is good." Out of context, we might interpret the entire statement to contain either an argument (We ought to believe in our cultural heritage, because it is good.) or an explanation (Americans believe in our cultural heritage, because they know it is good.). However, the context from which this passage was quoted indicated that it is best interpreted as a value judgment being used as a premise for a larger argument with a very controversial conclusion. In the original
article, "Immigration:
Threat to
Our Cultural Heritage," Lawrence Auster(6)
attacked the traditional liberal ideology of blind commitment to
cultural
diversity. He attempted to demonstrate (conclude) that this ideology,
which
has always been assumed to be an important contributing factor to the
goals
of democracy is actually "profoundly inimical to freedom" when
translated
into the contemporary context of unrestricted U.S. immigration of Latin
American and Asian people. According to Auster, the natural forces of
ethnic
and cultural identity, power struggle for self-determination, and the
hardship
of assimilation into a new and alien culture have produced and are
producing
a "dangerous impetus toward ethnic chauvinism" and a "manifestation
of...
adversary culture." He claims we are finding a "massive assault on
Western
literature and thought" and a dangerous weakening of commitment to
traditional
American ideals that restricts freedom to express certain ideas.
According
to Auster, a "new, unfree America (is) being born of uncontrolled
immigration."
In other words, because more and more people immigrating to the United
States are from Asian and Latin countries and do not share the
political
and philosophical ideals of European-Western culture, those ideals are
not only constantly under attack but are in danger of being overwhelmed
in a new atmosphere of intolerance for other cultures and an
overzealous
protectiveness of one's own. At various universities in the United
States,
according to Auster, this cultural protectiveness became manifest in
the
phenomenon of "political correctness," where the ideal of free speech
was
under attack. In
short, our democracy is
being slowly destroyed by too much immigration from non-European
countries.
This issue is a deeply involved and sensitive one of great importance. It touches on one of the greatest issues of our time, not only for the United States but for the entire world: How to obtain a unity of purpose and commitment to global or national democratic values while different ways of living are brought together as never before in history; how to maintain a sense of unity as a fragile species with a common, contingent evolutionary history and an uncertain future, while celebrating cultural diversity and the need for cultural autonomy; how to reap the benefits while moderating the inevitable frictions produced by cultural differences; how to avoid a destructive "us-vs.-them" attitude when cultural differences are brought together. Personally, I disagree with Mr. Auster's
conclusion
that the commitment to cultural diversity is
hostile
to freedom and destroying America. Living in I would argue that this more humble perspective is vital. A greater danger than the frictions produced from cultural diversity, which are most likely only temporary, is the wholesale subversion of cultural differences by some of the peripheral values of Western culture -- the cultural imperialism currently taking place as one culture after another adopts Western economic values and the engines driving these values, science and technology. Perhaps Western-European culture needs a good philosophical slap in the face to recognize its proper place as a most valuable contribution to the human experience, but not one that is exclusive and absolute. There are other valuable traditions besides science and technology, and wherever people have congregated on this planet and formed a society, insightful ways of relating to reality have been discovered. I would argue that in the long run the advertisements we looked at in Chapter 1, and the daily unprotected onslaught and uncritical acceptance of such advertisements, are much more dangerous to the health of a society than would be a neighborhood full of families who speak different languages. I would worry more about all of these families buying the same digital video recorder at Sam Kung's, and the children of these families laughing at the "silly" beliefs of their grandparents from the old country. I would worry much more about the implications of government reports that describe the Japanese people as "creatures of an ageless, amoral, manipulative, and controlling culture" conspiring to dominate the world.(7) Or, the mental profiling of all Muslims as terrorists. I might not be able to persuade Mr. Auster to change his mind, but if Mr. Auster and I stayed on track, if we both used reasonable arguments for our positions, if we then identified the nature of our premises -- statements of fact, values, explanations, and such -- we would both learn a lot from each other. We would have an opportunity of learning precisely where we disagree and then be directed to a discussion of methodologies that might be used to resolve disagreements other than logical ones. We might also gain valuable insights into hidden assumptions we did not realize we were making and recognize that some of our premises need a great deal more thought. Anyone following our discussion would likewise benefit from such focus and perhaps be stimulated to suggest ideas or points of view that we had not considered. My disagreement with Mr. Auster would no doubt involve explanations, values, and beliefs, as well as logical arguments. Life is tough, communication difficult, closure on major philosophical issues most often elusive. But the distinctions we have made thus far in language use at least give us areas of focus and a discipline of thinking that is surely better than pointless shouting, especially if our goal is to test our beliefs. Meaning and Clarification Because beliefs consist of statements, and statements consist of words, a little reflection reveals that the task of evaluating an argument and the terms contained in it are linked. In Chapter 1, I asked you to evaluate the claim, "Dunlop's SP-4 radial tire had the highest rating in Car and Driver tire test." We recognized that the terms rating and test were vague. Vague expressions lack clarity; their meanings are unfocused or fuzzy. To evaluate the claim of this advertisement these terms needed to be defined more precisely. How was the rating done? What were the specifics of the test? And so on. On the other hand, we found that the term highest was viciously ambiguous. An ambiguous term has two or more distinct meanings in a given context. The advertisers deliberately took advantage of an ambiguity: In this context, highest could mean either the very highest rating, meaning all other tires rated lower, or the highest category used, meaning that this was only a general category and several other tires could rate placement in this category, some or all rating higher than Dunlop within this category. In this section we will see that in evaluating arguments and persuasive appeals, we need to pay attention to how arguments are packaged. We need to be "picky" and pay attention to the meaning of the words used and the style of presentation. Otherwise, we can easily be tricked into believing that evidence is presented when it is not, or that evidence is stronger than it really is. Consider this example: EXAMPLE 2-15 Any intelligent human being living on the brink of the twenty-first century should support a woman's right to abortion. Abortion is not murder, it is simply the prevention of a future person. The last sentence in this passage shows that we often offer definitions of key terms to provide clarity for our positions and eliminate vagueness and ambiguity. But it also shows that the meanings of terms are linked with beliefs, and definitions are as much in need of critical evaluation as arguments are. It is often appropriate in a discussion to explore a reasoning trail by asking, "What do you mean by X?" where X is a key term within an argument. But we also have to ask if there are good reasons for the offered definition. In 2-15, does the author have a right to define abortion as meaning "the prevention of a future person"? Is this the way the word abortion is commonly used? If not, are there good reasons for using the word in such a unique way? Traditionally, most logic and English books distinguish between denotative and connotative definitions. A denotative definition of a term involves pointing to or naming particular objects or instances for which the term applies. This is how we start children toward language acquisition. If we want to teach a child the meaning of the terms rabbit and chair, we point to examples of these. An amazing process seems to take place during such language acquisition. We point to a few different examples of chairs, and fairly quickly a child "gets it." Even though we show only relatively few of the many different types of chairs, somehow the child grasps the essence of what all chairs are like. Eventually, the child seems to understand what has been traditionally called a term's connotative meaning. Connotative meaning is the package of qualities and attributes intended by use of the term. For this reason connotative meaning is often called intentional meaning. When a child understands correctly the use of the word chair, he or she understands what is intended when a speaker uses the term, in this case an object for people to sit on that has different types of support. Notice that by merely pointing at different examples of chairs a child could easily be confused about the denotative meaning of chair. A child could easily be uncertain as to what we are pointing at. The examples we use could all be chairs made of wood, or with four legs, or of a particular color. The child must eventually learn that what we intend by the term is more flexible than these particular instances of chairs; that chairs can have different colors, different types of support, and can be made out of many different types of material. Because we are interested in meaning to obtain clarity, and clarity presupposes agreement on meaning, it is important to see that there are different theories of meaning. Some philosophers, for instance, have denied that denotative definitions really exist or are ever very useful. These philosophers argue that only intentional meaning exists for terms and there never is any absolute, fixed, intended meaning for any term -- that the package of the qualities and attributes intended by the use of a term is a "fuzzy" package, containing one set of qualities and attributes in one situation and a slightly different set in another. For instance, the word 'snow' will mean something different for a person living in Minnesota and a person living in Singapore. The package of qualities and attributes of Minnesota snow will probably be larger, containing more distinctions and shades of meaning. Thus, some philosophers argue that intentional meaning is always relative to a language-using group -- a culture, subculture, or class of people. This is particularly apparent when we try to understand other cultures by learning the language of that culture. Suppose I am trying to
learn a language
where the
term gavagi is used for what I call rabbit. After a
few days
of exchanging pointing gestures with the members of this culture I
conclude
incorrectly that I understand what they mean by the term gavagi. Little
do I realize that in this culture what the members intend by gavagi
is "sacred, untouchable object that contains the spirit of one of
our
ancestors." Perhaps for me, rabbit means "pesky creature that
used
to eat grandma's vegetables, but tasted a little like chicken and was
good
for a barbecue when grandpa killed one for dinner." Clearly, in spite
of
our consistent pointing gestures the situation is unfortunately ideal
for
major miscommunication, especially if I ever go hunting with some of
the
members of this culture. Although
we seem to be
pointing at the same object (the rabbit), clearly our respective
connotative
meanings for ‘rabbit’ are very different.
This little excursion into the relativity and flexibility of meaning is important. Most logic and English books claim that types of definitions can be classified and that rules provide "correct" definitions depending on the classification. For instance, lexical definitions are considered the essential meaning of a term or the way the word is used by most people. The goal of a dictionary is to provide the lexical definition of terms. Some examples of rules for providing lexical definitions would be: avoid circularity, avoid being too broad or narrow, avoid vagueness and ambiguity, avoid emotional terminology, be affirmative rather than negative, and indicate the context where appropriate. Such definitions are also considered classifiable as true or false. But because there are different theories of meaning, terms such as correct, true, and false may be too strong and subculturally biased. Much of life's richness is derived from the deliberate use of fuzzy language. For instance, for someone who regularly watched late-night television in the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s, the argument "The David Letterman show is better than that of Arsenio Hall, because Arsenio Hall is nothing but a long corridor designed by an Italian architect" might make a lot of sense (as well as being humorous). It implies a whole host of features about both men and their shows -- how they dress, the depth of their personalities, the quality of their guests and entertainment, and the kind of people that watch each show. In logical analysis, our task of being "abbreviators" is not to inhibit, prohibit, or destroy such fun uses of language, or to limit all the creative ways that we use words to carve perspectives out of the silence of existence, any more than it is to ban all emotion from life. Our task is simply to provide clarity. Recognition of the existence of language using groups and the flexibility of meaning will often be part of this task. So, if someone uses a term or a phrase in a unique way as part of an argument, our question is always the same: "Are there good reasons for using the term or phrase in this unique way?" Another example found in logic and English books is that of stipulative definitions. A stipulative definition does not attempt to define a word the way most people use it, but specifies a relatively arbitrary operational meaning to a term, such as when an instructor says, "In my class an A grade will mean a course average of between 88 percent and 100 percent of total points." Such a definition is not totally arbitrary, of course. There may be good reasons why the instructor has chosen 88 percent rather than 90 percent as the low end for an A grade. Based on the instructor's standards for learning, past student performance, difficulty of the material in the class, the predictive value of achieving an A in this class and achieving an A in other classes, and the number of students who achieve A grades relative to the number of students who achieve other grades, the instructor may have decided that 88 percent is more appropriate than the stricter and more traditional 90 percent. But choosing 88 percent rather than 87 percent or 89 percent is probably arbitrary. Some cutoff point is needed, and the instructor has decided that the lower end for an A grade needs to be relaxed a little. Notice that what we needed in the Dunlop "highest rating" example to properly evaluate the advertising claim was a stipulative definition for the phrase highest rating. When we discovered that an excellent or highest rating could be achieved by scoring between 300 and 350 points on the tire test, Dunlop's tire was placed in a different perspective relative to its major competitors, which actually scored higher within this category. By arbitrarily changing the stipulative definition of highest we could render the advertisement claim false. Suppose Dunlop's major competitors scored 325 points and above, but Dunlop scored only 310 points. If we arbitrarily changed the stipulative definition of highest to mean between 325 and 350 points, Dunlop's tire could no longer be given this rating. It is often the case that a lot of money is riding on stipulative definition decisions. In the early 1990s, Congress and the Food
and Drug
Administration (FDA) began to respond to consumer protection group
concerns
on food package labeling. By this time, food manufacturers had taken
advantage
of increasingly health-conscious consumers by making liberal use of
words
such as light, low, and free (as in reduced fat, low
cholesterol,
sugar-free). Without standards and stipulative definitions, these terms
could mean just about anything. Thus, by 1993, the FDA issued rules
based
on a law passed by Congress, such that free must mean less
than
five calories, less than 0.5 grams of sugar, and less than 5 milligrams
of cholesterol and 2 grams of saturated fat per serving. Low must mean
less than 140 milligrams of sodium, less than 40 calories, 20
milligrams
or less of cholesterol, and 3 grams or less of fat with 1 gram or less
of saturated fat -- each per 100 grams per of food. Without such
stipulative
definitions, a 1991 Lean Cuisine frozen dinner advertisement was able
to
claim that Lean Cuisine dinners "skimp on" calories, fat, and sodium.
The
advertisement claimed that these dinners contained only 1 gram of
sodium
per entree, but 1 gram is equal to 1,000 milligrams, 860 milligrams
higher
than what the FDA defined as low!(8) A
similar situation
was repeated in 2003-2004 with the gain in popularity of the Atkins
Diet. Advertisements for products appeared
hyping the
benefits of products due to being “low-carb,” having a certain amount
of “net-carbs,”
“effective carbs,” “fit-carbs,” or “useable net-carbs.” A large percentage of corn and soybeans are now genetically modified and derivatives of these vegetables are mixed to varying degrees in a large number of processed foods. Even with the best intentions it is difficult to make sure that trace amounts of genetically modified corn and soybeans don't get into foods intended as GM pure. Furthermore, all processed foods contain major ingredients mixed with minor additives. What if a small percentage of the additive, itself a very small percentage of the resulting product, was the result of a genetically modified process somewhere down the line in the manufacturing process? What if a manufacturer of cheese uses a genically modified enzyme to set the cheese or chickens are raised on genetically modified feed. Even though there is no genetically modified ingredients in the final product, how should these foods be classified? In 2001 the European Union decided that
products
don't require labeling if each of the ingredients contains 1%
bioengineered
material or less. Consumer groups wanted a limit one-tenth of 1%.
And speaking of vegetables and trace ingredients, are french fries
still
a vegetable if the vegetable oil they are fried in has some "essence of
beef" added for flavoring purposes? Hindu and vegetarian groups
sued
McDonalds over the issue in 2002.
One would think that we
all know what a disease is. But can a
disease be “manufactured” in a sense by a drug company for profit? Can the definition of a disease be stretched
to
the point that people are made to believe an unhealthy condition exists
where
previously the same condition was considered normal?
In September 2000 class action lawsuits were
filed in One would also think that
it would be easy to provide a definition for “really being a woman.” But in an age of routine sex changes,
transgendered women, and controversy over
whether intersexed children should have “gender management” surgeries,
this is not an easy matter and has been the subject of
controversy in
women's sports (tennis and canoe racing). Should
we define who a woman is based on a person's birth
certificate? Genetic testing?
Anatomy alone? The point of these
examples shows that providing precise definitions is often a matter of
great
consequence. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, the U.S. governments stipulative definition of "truck" became very controversial and a subject of much debate between the automobile industry and environmental groups. In an attempt to insure energy security and lesson the U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the government mandated a particular level of fuel efficiency in passenger cars and trucks. Because many trucks were used for essential job related activities, the fuel efficiency levels for trucks were much lower than for passenger cars. But by the first decade of the twenty-first century the most popular selling (and profitable for automobile manufacturers) cars were SUVs, which were classified as "light trucks," and subject to lower standards of fuel efficiency. Hence, fuel consumption increased 7% in the 1990s in spite of major advances in engine performance. Environmental groups wanted the definition changed to exclude SUVs. Most automobile manufacturers resisted any change. Consider some other
famous definition
problems.
Former president Clinton was asked in court under oath if he had ever
had
"sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.
The
definition he was given of sexual relations did not include oral sex,
so
he answered "no." Did he lie? His presidency may have been
saved by a poor lexical definition of sexual relations. About the same time a
national survey on teenage attitudes on sex revealed that many teens
did not
consider anal sex as sexual intercourse. This
was an alarming revelation for public health
officials concerned about
the spread of AIDS. Presumably teens who
had been warned about AIDS and unprotected sexual intercourse would
think that
they had found a way around the danger.
After the 9/11 World Trade Center attack the Bush administration decided to declare war on terrorism. But how to define terrorism was no small problem. To give but one example, the United States needed Pakistan as an ally to help with the war in Afghanistan. But Pakistan was supporting groups in Kashmir that were viewed as freedom fighters for the liberation of Kashmir. India, controlling disputed parts of Kashmir, deemed these groups as terrorists. In a famous speech, the president consequently defined terrorist organizations as those with a "global reach." Most people in the United States agreed with a conservative Republican Senator, who said, "We don't need to quibble about a definition of terrorism. We know it when we see it." Note that the Senator was saying that a denotative definition is easy. We can simply "point" to 9/11 and the involvement of Al Qaeda. But how could the President or the Senator define terrorism connotatively that excluded the actions of the United States itself as terrorist? At the time the FBI defined terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." Applying that definition to the actions of the United States in Nicaragua in the 1980s would classify the CIA and the Nicaraguan "Contras" as terrorists rather than "freedom fighters" (President Reagan's characterization of the Contras). The CIA "harbored," recruited, armed and trained the Contras, in order to "coerce" and overthrow a government, and terrorize a people, through violent means ("in furtherance of political [and] social objectives"). U.S. intervention went well beyond "harboring" in 1984, when the CIA mined three Nicaraguan harbors. When Nicaragua took this action to the World Court, an $18 billion judgment was brought against the U.S. The U.S. response was to simply refuse to acknowledge the Court's jurisdiction. Abortion discussions and decisions have involved a stipulative definition for the phrase "legal abortion." Because brain activity in the fetus can be detected after the first three months of pregnancy, many supporters of abortion have advocated that legal abortion should mean "within the first trimester," within the first three months of pregnancy. When these supporters say that women should have the constitutional right to legal abortion, they do not mean at any time during pregnancy. For these supporters of legal abortion, given that the mother is healthy and that the fetus is developing normally, there is a legal and moral difference between an abortion within the first trimester and one at eight and one-half months that terminates the fetus's development, just as there would be a legal and moral difference between an abortion within the first trimester and the discarding of a newborn baby in a trash can. Proponents have argued that even though three months is relatively arbitrary, there are good reasons for choosing a cutoff point around this time: That given the general right of a woman to control her own body and the general uncertainty of when life begins, and the physiological knowledge that brain waves can be detected in a fetus after the first trimester, three months is argued to be a reasonable legal and moral cutoff point. Those who oppose abortion, of course, object to giving any meaning to the phrase "legal abortion" by claiming that life begins at conception. This claim of a true lexical definition of life, if widely accepted, would have huge implications in potentially restricting cures for many diseases. Advocates of therapeutic cloning argue that the blastocyst stage of the development of an embryo is just a bunch of undifferentiated "stem" cells and not a human being. There is no body shape, no brain, heart, etc. Potentially, however, these stems cells could become hearts, livers, kidneys, spinal cords, nerve cells, and so on, to be used for transplants without rejection and save thousands of live a year. So, a lexical definition for human life here is extremely important and will involve a full range of our beliefs. The important point about providing definitions is that even if we need to acknowledge the appropriateness of allowing for a great deal of flexibility in providing meanings for terms, we can still recognize the need for some flexible rules of thumb that highlight examples of unfairness in the use of words. For instance, the old television sitcom "All in the Family" showed a scene in which the star, Archie Bunker, a rather narrowly cultured man in his fifties who had only a sixth-grade education, was sitting at his kitchen table allegedly studying for a history test as part of his attempt to finally get his high school diploma. Rather than studying for the test, however, he was actually practicing a cheating technique that he planned to use. He was wearing a long-sleeved shirt, and under one sleeve was a roll of paper with key terms and dates on it. He was practicing to see if he could slyly slide the paper out without it being seen. When his daughter, Gloria, walked by and saw what he was doing, the conversation went like this: EXAMPLE 2-16 Archie: "I certainly am, little girl." Gloria: "But Daddy, that's cheating!" Archie: "It certainly is not, little girl. Cheating is when you are supposed to give something to someone and you don't. I'm supposed to give them the right answers, so I'm going to give them the right answers." Gloria: "But, Daddy, you're not being honest!" Archie: "I certainly am, little girl. I asked myself an honest question, `Could you pass this test without these notes?' And I gave myself an honest answer, `No you could not.'" Clearly, Archie is not being fair in his use of the words cheating and honesty. His argument is a classic example of what logicians call equivocation, the inconsistent use of a word or phrase. Equivocations are often deliberately used to create humorous situations, as in old movie comedies when a butler tells the comedy star to "Walk this way," and the comedian proceeds to imitate the way the butler is walking rather than just follow him. But when we argue, and a word or phrase occurs in both a premise and the conclusion, the reasoning trail will not be valid if the words are used inconsistently. An illusion of evidence will be created, but with no evidence actually supplied by the premise. Clearly, Archie has not provided a good case for being honest in the way Gloria is using the term.(9) Does the use of the word intelligent in example 2-15 add anything to the logical support of the abortion argument? Is it fair? When people argue, they want to be as persuasive as possible. They therefore choose words that "color" their positions in the most favorable light possible. But such coloring is not necessarily evidence. Consider this example: EXAMPLE 2-17 Congress should support the president's request for the Peacekeeper missile. Our freedom, and the peace and freedom of the entire world for that matter, depends upon a strong military defense system. What is a Peacekeeper missile? During the early 1980s, President Reagan wanted a reluctant Congress to fund his plan for building the MX nuclear missile. For its time, this would be an awesome weapon. It would be mobile, making it hard for an enemy to destroy before it was launched. It would be very accurate, enabling detonation of a nuclear bomb precisely over the location of an enemy's nuclear missiles. Also, each warhead of an individual MX missile would carry as many as fourteen nuclear bombs, such that once the missile was launched over enemy territory, the warhead would come apart and be able to independently target fourteen different military sites or cities. It would also cost tens of billions of dollars to construct, taking that much more money away from investment in economic development, education, and health care. For critics of the MX missile, its construction also implied a radical and dangerous change in our nuclear defense policy. Our previous policy was called "MAD," an acronym for "Mutually Assured Destruction." As the name implies, by building up a redundant nuclear force that would enable us to destroy the major cities of a whole country many times over, our policy was to create a situation where it would be crazy for anyone to ever attack us. At one time, for instance, thirty-six nuclear bombs were targeted on Moscow, even though only one was needed to destroy the city and kill millions of people, and just one of our modern submarines (the Trident) could launch enough missiles to destroy more than 100 cities. With this policy, we aimed our bombs at people, hoping that no sane leader would ever want all his or her people dead. This policy partly reflected the inaccuracy of pre-1980 missile guidance systems; a city is a relatively big place, and bombs don't have to hit it in the middle to destroy much of the city. However, to hit
reinforced concrete
missile launching
sites located underground, accuracy is very important. So, if we have
an
accurate missile that can knock out the enemy's missiles, why not aim
our
terrible weapons at other terrible weapons rather than at innocent
people?
The problem, according to Reagan critics, was the new strategy and
psychology
implied in this plan. From the other side's point of view, the MX
missile
was a "first-strike" weapon -- it could destroy an enemy's missiles
before
they could be launched -- implying that the country with such an
offensive
missile would then not only be interested in defending itself by
ensuring
nuclear war would never happen, but in winning a nuclear war as well.
If
you were on the other side and you knew that your enemy could now
destroy
the only means that you had of defending yourself, you would be more
paranoid
and the constraints that you had developed for not launching your own
weapons
would be lessened. In short, in an apparently dangerous situation you
would
be more "trigger happy," more likely to think "use them or lose them,"
to launch your weapons before they were destroyed by accurate incoming
missiles. Those opposed to the Reagan plan argued that we would be
spending
billions of dollars to recklessly increase the danger of nuclear war,
not lessen
it. Supporters of
Reagan argued
that it not only made more sense to target weapons rather than people,
but in
the long run the Soviet Union would not be able to compete economically
with
the United States buildup of weapons.
Given this controversy, the Reagan administration made sure that all public discussions, speeches, and correspondence by administration officials used the term Peacekeeper rather than MX missile. What this example shows is that we can distinguish between the cognitive or descriptive meaning of a term and the emotive meaning or positive coloring added to a term. It is surely a more positive thought to think of peace than the detonation of a nuclear missile, but coloring the MX missile in this way did not offer evidence that its construction would bring about a more peaceful and secure world. For critics of the Reagan plan, the MX missile was not a weapon of defense and peace, but an expensive offensive weapon of war that would actually make war more likely, reduce economic investment and competitiveness, and produce fewer jobs and more homeless people. These critics may have been wrong, but coloring the debate with the word Peacekeeper was not evidence against the critics.(10) Because politics is the art of
persuasion, politicians
and their speechwriters spend a considerable amount of time emotively
coloring
their positions in the most positive light possible. The Reagan
administration
referred to the Nicaraguan Contras as "freedom fighters," but to those
Nicaraguans who defended the Sandanista government these Contras were
often
seen as "terrorists" who sometimes pillaged farms for food, raped
women,
killed innocent men, women, and children, and received illegal and
immoral
aid from the United States' CIA, which was interfering in the affairs
of
a sovereign country. When the Reagan plan to spend trillions
of dollars
on building a laser weapon system in space became controversial -- not
only because of its great cost ($6 billion per year) but also because
of
its questionable workability -- the administration emphasized that its
proposal was called the "Strategic Defense Initiative," and not "Star
Wars"
as used by critics. "Defense" sounds much more positive than "Wars." By
the time of the Clinton administration, although the former Soviet
Union
was no longer our nuclear adversary, $3 billion was still being spent
annually
on the project, the name had been changed to Ballistic Missile Defense,
and the program became part of a policy called Theater Missile
Defense.(11)
With the George W. Bush presidency funding increased to $10 billion a
year by 2004, and part of the program was called "Theater High-Altitude
Area Defense."
Critics still referred to the effort as Star Wars and claimed that the
system would not work and that chemical and biological terrorism were
far
greater threats. This amount of money was twice the amount spent
on customs and border patrol by the Department of Homeland Security. Speaking of the Bush administration, in one of President George W. Bush's state of the union speeches he called his new-forest initiative the "healthy forest initiative." But many environmental groups claimed it would give a blank check to logging interests to log our national forests. (There will no longer be public hearings on the decisions the government makes about the national forests.) He called his proposal for a new type of fuel-efficient car the "freedom car." But this program was already started by former President Clinton and Bush's new tax plan gave very generous tax breaks to any business that bought a big SUV. The point is, does such emotive coloring add anything to the clarity of the debates on these issues? Because positive coloring does not necessarily add any positive evidence, you should be on guard to separate the two. The example on the building of a weapon system in space also shows that sometimes it is in a politician's best interest to "neutralize" emotionally charged and controversial issues, to disguise negative features with a bland coloring or with what are called bureaucratic euphemisms. Consider these examples: EXAMPLE 2-18 The United States demonstrated its military and moral superiority during the 1990 Persian Gulf war. Our surgical strikes and smart weapons overwhelmed Iraqi forces while keeping collateral damage to a minimum, and our own loses were mostly from friendly fire. EXAMPLE 2-19 The president has fulfilled his campaign promise to the American people. With the exception of a few items of revenue enhancement, there have been no new tax increases. And this policy has worked. With the exception of a significant, but temporary, downturn in the economy we have avoided a serious recession. The front-line experience of war is a terrible thing. Firsthand experience of death and bodily mutilation forces us to acknowledge our own fragility and eventual death, and often at an even deeper level, confront the great puzzling issues of the meaning of life and death. It is not easy to get the black-and-white support needed to fight a war efficiently if people are emotionally confused and terrified. So our politicians and military commanders are trained to use bland phrases such as "collateral damage" to neutralize the fact that in any war significant numbers of innocent people will be killed who unfortunately lived in areas next to (lateral to) bomb sites. It also helps support the voters moral self-image to think that these people were killed as the result of a "surgical" process, implying that the military were doing the best they could not to kill them, even though they knew they would anyway. The politicians and military commanders also don't want to engender emotional confusion by describing the accidental killing and maiming of our own people by their own "smart" weapons, weapons with one-track robot minds programmed to smash only targets, any targets. So, they say our people experienced "friendly fire." It is also hard to maintain clarity of resolve for goals unless a simple "us-versus-them" attitude is maintained. So, in the case of the Persian Gulf War, the United States government attempted to neutralize the fact that its forces killed approximately one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers, mostly simple farm boys who didn't want to fight anyone, and that many were killed "surgically" in a "turkey shoot" on a Basra road attempting to return to their families.(12) The world may be an
evil place sometimes,
and difficult
paths may need to be followed that are often only the lesser of evil
paths.
A strong military and the U.S. action against Iraq and Afghanistan may
be examples of these lesser evils, but bland coloring with bureaucratic
euphemisms does not add to the evidence for the choices the United
States
made. Also,
emotionally appealing
references to “freedom is not free” and the need to defend the
“homeland”
against “evil doers,” or vague statements “I
am against terrorism and plan to defend In heated matters such as this, people will disagree whether the expressions they use are emotional coloring, bland euphemistic de-coloring, or attempts at being objective. Some people will protest vociferously when newspaper articles describe what they view as “Muslim terrorists” as “hostage-takers,” “rebels,” “separatists,” or “militants.” Shouldn’t a sentence that states, “The Chechen separatists began firing into the backs of fleeing children,” be better described as “The Chechen terrorists murdered the fleeing defenseless children by shooting them in the back”? On the other hand, those supporting the cause of the “Chechen separatists” often refer to them as “holy warriors.” The favorable coloring of economic conditions and the actions used to deal with them is also high on the list of political strategies. Politicians do not get elected by promising taxes and economic hardships. Walter Mondale was clobbered by Reagan in the 1984 U.S. presidential election after candidly telling the voters that raising taxes would be necessary to reduce the government's enormous deficit that otherwise must be paid by future generations. George Bush learned this lesson well by dramatically stating repeatedly during the 1988 presidential elections, "Read my lips, no new taxes." When by 1990 taxes had been raised on numerous items that affected the entire population, the Bush administration was careful to refer to these increases as "revenue enhancements." During this same period of time, when the country seemed to be in a recession -- when economic indicators on employment and business activity based on traditional stipulative definitions of the term recession seemed to have been reached -- administrative officials were careful not to use the "R-word" and instead referred to a "significant downturn" in the economy. These examples are not meant to imply that we know that the economic and military policies of political leaders are always suspect. But their policies are always controversial, and clarity of debate is achievable only if we get to the real issues, only if we are sensitive to the words used and can peel away the surface dazzle of positive coloring or the obscuring screens of neutralized coloring and understand the positions of both sides of an issue before we judge them. For more examples of bureaucratic euphemisms, here are some famous cases: "termination with prejudice" (CIA reference to killing someone); "health alteration squad" (also used by the CIA, in this case to refer to an assassination team);(13) "enhanced radiation device" (US. military reference to a new type of nuclear bomb, a neutron bomb that would kill more people, but would not be as destructive to physical facilities). While we are on this subject, note how lawyers sometimes create a favorable perspective for their clients. In August of 1991, the news media began covering a story of the Fort Lauderdale wife of a Broward County sheriff. She had been arrested for prostitution and having sex with more than fifty different men, many of them prominent figures in the surrounding communities. However, her lawyer argued that because she was a nymphomaniac and her husband was impotent, her action was not prostitution but "sexual surrogacy." Lawyers also help defend medical practitioners against suits with euphemisms for death. When an anesthesiologist made a mistake and a patient died, a report of the event referred to a "substantive negative outcome" for the patient. Other doublespeak phrases sometimes used are: "therapeutic misadventure," "diagnostic misadventure," and "negative patient-care outcome." And let's hope that if you need an operation your doctor will not need to write on your chart, "Failed to fulfill his wellness potential."(14) But perhaps the academy award for an unjust euphemism should go to the Japanese government and its description of the use of young Korean girls as sexual slaves to "service" Japanese troops during World War II as "comfort women." During the Japanese occupation of much of Southeast Asia as many as two hundred thousand young Korean girls were taken from their families. The girls were as young as eleven, and the Japanese purportedly preferred young, intelligent girls who did well in school. In harsh jungle conditions each was made to sexually service sometimes as many as sixty men per day at special "comfort stations." More than 90 percent of these young women died, and those who eventually were able to return to their homes were most often then rejected by their families and lived the rest of their lives as outcasts. In terms of the treatment of women throughout history, it is worth noting that no criminal law against male infidelity even existed until an 1810 French law, and this law only prohibited a married man from keeping a concubine in his house against his wife's wishes. Women have been killed, shamed, tortured, branded (literally tattooed by a husband to indicate a date of intercourse to ensure the paternity of his offspring), circumcised (female circumcision -- a euphemism for removal of the clitoris or most of the external female genitalia to reduce female interest in the possibility of extramarital sex), and infibulated (the barbaric sewing up of a woman's labia majora nearly shut, so as to make intercourse impossible) -- all in the purpose of fidelity to men.(15) The example of comfort women should help
you realize that being logical and emotional are not
necessarily
inconsistent human traits. That sometimes the rational thing to do is
to
be outraged over issues of great concern to us. Emotions do not always
intrude upon the reasoning process. Feelings can act consistently with
our reasoning skills and often help guide them.(16)
Compare the statements: "The Japanese government used comfort women and
stations during World War II to boost the morale of its soldiers" and
"The
Japanese government participated in institutional gang rape of children
during World War II." Which statement is the fairest, the most
accurate,
the most rational? How should one have reacted to statements regarding
"ethnic cleansing" -- the murder of men, women, and children of a rival
religion or ethnic identity during the early 1990s war in Bosnia? It
would
not have been illogical to react with moral indignation and outrage. However, these examples should be sufficient to make you realize that the use of words is not a neutral activity in arguments, that a great deal of bias, slanting, and unfairness occur in the use of language and can interfere with objectively following a reasoning trail. Even an apparently straightforward descriptive statement can contain an entirely slanted worldview. Consider this statement: "In the future, technology will be advanced to the point that astronauts will be able to take their wives and children with them on long space voyages." Do you see the not-so-hidden stereotyping? In the future won't some astronauts be women? Before we leave this section, note one more common hurdle to the task of understanding prior to judging -- the use of a jargon style. Here is a typical example: EXAMPLE 2-20 The belief in an ontologically homogenous relation between statements about UFOs and extraterrestrial life is not evidentially probative. No one who takes the scientific evidence seriously should believe that we have been visited by intelligent extraterrestrials. The use of such language is often a deliberate act of positive coloring in the sense that we are supposed to be left with the impression that anyone who can use such impressive language must know what they are talking about. We are so overwhelmed that we forget that we must understand the argument and its statements before we judge them. The first statement in 2-20 says only that the evidence linking statements about UFO sightings and real ETs is weak. So, all this argument amounts to is the claim that we should not believe that we have been visited by ETs because the evidence that we have is weak. Thus, rather than just accepting this argument because it is packaged in such an impressive style, the appropriate question to ask, and the appropriate reasoning trail to follow, would be to determine the nature of this "weak" evidence. The evidence might not be "evidentially probative," but the use of such an imposing phrase does not tell us much. Later in this book we will learn how to use the techniques of formal symbolic logic to "straighten out" and clarify torturous statements. For instance, interpret this statement: "If it is not true that marijuana is not widely used or as harmful as alcohol, then we should follow the example of the state of Alaska and decriminalize its use." Although with a little thought you should be able to do this now, later we will see how to clarify this statement mechanically to mean, "If marijuana is widely used, but not as harmful as alcohol, then we should follow the example of the state of Alaska and decriminalize its use."(17) Here are some more examples that we will learn how to mechanically translate into a simpler style. Can you restate what these sentences are saying in a simpler style? EXAMPLE 2-21 "I went into the meeting not believing it would be illegal not to tell Congress the truth." Oliver North's answer to lawyer's question at his trial for his Iran-Contra role. EXAMPLE 2-22 It is not true that you can pass the final and not pass the course. EXAMPLE 2-23 Only if we don't make the car payment this month will we have enough money for both the medical bills and basic necessities. EXAMPLE 2-24 The view of the arbitration board that the fine against Johnson was justified but the suspension from the team was not is mistaken. EXAMPLE 2-25 It is not true that not being in the
neighborhood
on the night of the crime is a sufficient condition for not having
knowledge
of the crime. What is Truth? Up to this point in our discussion of meaning and reasoning we have been using the word true as if it were clear and uncontroversial what we were talking about. But obviously the fact that people disagree so often indicates widespread disagreement not only about what is true, but even over a definition of truth, over a conception of what it is, so we can know when we have it. This section will be a little difficult, but in the interest of honesty and completeness we need to talk about truth. You may require a lot of guidance in this section from your instructor, but keep in mind that some things you read are difficult because life is difficult, and you should not expect to understand everything you read immediately. Many writings on philosophical topics need to be read and reread, discussed, and contemplated as part of an ongoing process. Just as we do not live in a black-and-white world, we do not always find closure, agreement, or complete understanding on every topic even after a lot of thought and discussion. In teaching philosophy, the goal often is not just the understanding of various answers to a big question, but an understanding of the significance of the question. Understanding the significance of a question can be just as valuable as having answers, because once the importance of a question is grasped a whole new perspective opens up. And from that point on, new ideas and experiences are possible. Philosophers disagree on what truth is, but by the end of this section you should understand (although controversial) how the term is used in this book, and see the relevance of this question for the major issues of our time. First, a little history. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato (427-347 B.C.) was very concerned about how often people disagree and the negative implications this had for political harmony and the good life. With this in mind, he felt that the only statements that deserved the name true would be self-evident truths -- beliefs that just by thinking about them convey an absolute assurance that they are true and that any alternatives are false. For Plato, the statement "There are nine planets in our solar system" would not be considered true in this sense. We could be wrong about this now -- we could discover a tenth planet tomorrow -- or something could change such that the belief was no longer true in the future. One of the nine planets could be destroyed by some cosmic catastrophe.(18) For Plato a truth that we could doubt, or was only partially true, or was only temporary did not make any sense. Truth was a definitive notion. It was a categorical notion; a statement was really true or it was not. For Plato, we could not say we had knowledge about anything unless we were certain about what we thought we knew. So, for Plato only statements such as "2 + 2 = 4" and "There are no round squares" would qualify as really true. We just know these statements are true by thinking about them; it is self-evident that 2 + 2 equaling 5 and a round square are impossible. For Plato, another example of a self-evident truth would be "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line." Plato believed that we may learn about such self-evident statements from our experience, but once we do, we seem to have an insight into an "essence" that will be durable beyond anyone's experience and any human lifetime. Unlike the planet example, no future experience by any member of the human race, according to Plato, could show that 2 + 2 is not 4. If we all die, or even if the human race had never existed, Plato argued, the shortest distance between two points would still be a straight line and 2 + 2 would still be 4. These would still be objective truths, whether or not there are any subjective human beings around. Ever since Plato proposed this conception of truth, Western philosophers have had to grapple with whether there really are such self-evident truths common to all people and cultures, and whether, even if there are self-evident truths, there can be any about those things that are really important to us. Can there be any self-evident truths about what we should value in life, what we should believe about the meaning of our existence, whether God exists or not, and so on? Because of Plato's great influence, many Western philosophers have spent a lot of time attempting to derive important beliefs about values and meaning in life from alleged self-evident beliefs.(19) Some contemporary philosophers see this attempt as futile and actually quite biased. A philosopher starts out as part of a particular culture, searching for self-evident beliefs that will justify all the important beliefs that people of this culture accept. After constructing an elaborate philosophical system that serves as a foundation for this culture, small wonder that the process is judged a success. But the next generation of philosophers, or those from another tradition, easily spot the transparent ethnocentrism of this alleged success, and then proceed to construct their own grand system. All of this would be relatively harmless if these philosophers had not been influential. Unfortunately, most of these philosophers have been reckoned "great" philosophers by key members of their culture, and, according to modern critics, their systems have been used as powerful rationalizing justifications for the actions of the kings, queens, and political shakers of history. It is easy to go to war, and establish inflexible institutions to enforce a conception of normalcy and justice, if you firmly believe that your way of life is based on a self-evident, essential foundation. Philosophers who call themselves modern realists offer another view of truth. These philosophers have been influenced by the success of science in Western culture. The success of science makes it easy to believe in the existence of an objective physical world that we learn more and more about through the ages. Therefore, these philosophers offer what is called a correspondence theory of truth. According to this view, beliefs are true if we have a reasonable basis for believing that the terms used in our beliefs correspond at least approximately to real things in the objective world. So, when we say "There are nine planets in our solar system" or "The Earth is spherical" we point to the reasonable evidence that these beliefs are true. When realists are asked how we can define "reasonable evidence" they usually point to the methods of science and say that these methods guarantee that over time our beliefs will correspond more and more to the real world. Unlike Plato, most modern realists claim to be fallibilists. They believe that not only is no belief self-evident, but also any belief could be wrong (fallible). The methods of science ultimately are founded upon empirical evidence. We must use our experience of the world to justify our beliefs, and because our experience is never complete, even our best established beliefs could be wrong. If we keep observing nine planets when we investigate our solar system, then it is reasonable to believe that there really are nine planets. Furthermore, the realists argue, even though we could be wrong, our best established beliefs must be at least close to the real truth, they must reflect at least in some partial way an actual reality, otherwise it would be a miracle that our beliefs worked at all. Even if we discover that there are ten planets, the belief that there are nine planets would at least be approximately true. Realists consider their theory simply a commonsense theory of truth. One of the major
problems with this
alleged commonsense
view of truth, however, is that we have many important beliefs, such as
our value judgments, that contain parts of sentences that do not seem
to
correspond to anything physical. In the sentence, "George W. Bush is a
good president,"
what does the term 'good' correspond to? In 2004 during the
presidential race, political polls showed that the The difficulty of answering this question has led philosophers to either postulate some sort of mystical, nonphysical reality in which objects like good "hang out,"(20) or, for those philosophers who fancy themselves more down to earth, to reject values altogether as involving anything entitled to the name objective. Thus, the mystic philosophers have the problem of justifying to the rest of us some sort of hidden, nonphysical reality beyond the commonsense world we experience every day, and the down-to-earth philosophers must relegate some of our most important beliefs to statements about a secondary, subjective illusory reality. Other criticisms of realism are: (1) How can we ever obtain a kind of "above-it-all," godlike view to see whether our beliefs indeed correspond to an objective reality? How could we ever somehow get outside of our minds and cultures and somehow look "down" from an above-it-all perspective at some divide and see whether our beliefs on one side correspond to reality on the other? Won't we always, so to speak, take our beliefs, minds, and cultures wherever we go? (2) As a symptom of this problem, the methods of science and the resulting beliefs seem culturally influenced. Different cultures at different times seem to have had different conceptions of what 'scientific' meant, and this in turn produced different beliefs about what we should accept as true about the world. At one time it was thought sufficient to justify the claim that the Earth was spherical, because a circle was thought to be the most perfect mathematical object created by God. It was thought that if reality is of divine origin, then it would be simple and elegant, and a circle is much simpler to work with than some other geometric shape. Today, such a claim would not be considered scientific; some sort of observational evidence would be needed, such as pictures from space. Shortly after Newton's theory of gravity became well established (the early eighteenth century), most scientists of this time credited only beliefs that contained observable entities as scientific. So, a belief that contained the word atom would not be considered scientific. Today, scientists theorize about a whole host of unobservable entities, including atoms, subatomic particles, quarks, and mathematical "strings" in many spatial dimensions. For these reasons, some contemporary philosophers, who think of themselves as part of a "postmodern" philosophical movement, believe that both Plato's quest and that of the realist are not only futile but in fact have caused terrible harm. They argue that there is little difference in citing a divine or self-evident right to impose one's views and way of life on others and doing so by citing so-called objective evidence that one's views are the most reasonable. Narrow ways of life, self-serving power definitions of normalcy, inflexible institutions, and cultural imperialism are the result in either case. These philosophers argue that if you believe you are really right about something, either in the sense of certainty or objective evidence, then any kind of action becomes possible to impose those beliefs you believe are right. The solution, then, is to eliminate once and for all notions of truth in terms of "really right." In other words, the most honest and humane approach is to eliminate all notions of truth as objective! In its place these philosophers offer a pragmatic, consensus, or coherence theory of truth. These philosophers recognize only beliefs that people have and that these beliefs can only be justified by other beliefs that people have. Situations never exist where a belief can be checked directly with a so-called objective world. There are only situations where one belief is checked against other beliefs to see if they are consistent with each other. If we believe that the Earth is spherical, and we offer as evidence space shuttle astronauts who look out the window of their spacecraft and take video pictures for the evening news that show a spherical Earth, we are not showing a real physical spherical Earth that corresponds to the belief that the Earth is spherical. Instead, we are comparing one belief with many others. We are comparing the belief that the Earth is spherical with the beliefs: (1) From this vantage point in space under the condition of being in the shuttle, the Earth "appears" spherical; (2) This appearance is reliable because we believe that our video cameras are reliable, that our beliefs about how reflected light works in outer space are reliable and nothing "funny," such as distorting optical effects, happens to light in space; (3) These beliefs are reliable because they are consistent with other shuttle pictures, pictures taken with different cameras by astronauts who went to the Moon, and pictures from other spacecraft, such as the Voyager spacecraft that went to the outer planets, and the Galileo and the Cassini spacecraft that flew by the Earth twice on their ways to the planets Jupiter and Saturn. For these philosophers, our perspective is still a human perspective; we are not outside of our minds and beliefs when we take and interpret these pictures. And no matter how many particular beliefs of appearance are consistent with our general belief that the Earth is spherical, we are assuming (another belief) that nothing about the way light rays operate in space would distort these pictures. There has not always
been a consensus on
this belief
about light rays in space. Prior to the sixteenth century, most
astronomers
believed that light rays and perceptions based on them would be altered
in space. They believed that reality was divided into two spheres, an
earthly
terrestrial sphere and an ethereal, god-like, or celestial sphere. On
Earth,
physical processes occurred according to certain physical laws, but
these
same laws did not apply to motions of objects in space, because the
space
beyond the Moon was considered to be a different realm of reality --
essentially spiritual (celestial) stages on the way to heaven. It
was
thought absurd to believe that processes in a pure, god-like celestial
realm would obey the laws of motion of an impure, earthly realm. The
Moon,
Sun, and planets were not even considered physical places. For this
reason,
some important people of this time had a hard time believing the
results
of Galileo's telescopic observations, which seemed to show that the
Moon
had mountains and that Jupiter had moons of its own. That the telescope
worked on Earth, that it revealed distant details of physical objects,
proved nothing to those who believed that the telescope would not work
in a celestial realm because this celestial realm contained no physical
objects in the first place. As evidence for this, those who objected to
Galileo's telescopic interpretations would point to the fact that stars
appeared smaller when viewed through a telescope. This provided clear
evidence,
they thought, that reality operated differently in the different realms
and that the telescope distorted celestial truths. So, before Galileo's
telescopic observations could be considered convincing, other beliefs
had
to change. People had to become convinced that there was no celestial
realm,
that the planets were physical places like that of Earth, and that the
laws of nature operated in outer space as on Earth.
According to the pragmatic or coherence theory of truth, this shows that any particular belief cannot be considered in isolation from other beliefs. Every belief derives its meaning from being part of a "web of belief." What we observe through a telescope may stimulate a new belief, but only other beliefs can be used to justify that belief. If we are open-minded and observant, we are constantly receiving novel stimuli from the world as part of our experience of being human. This constant stimulation will constantly pressure the coherence of our webs of beliefs, as the novel experience of observing something through a telescope did during Galileo's time. New ideas will emerge that are inconsistent with the current web of belief, causing a constant process of tense readjustment. To keep the web of beliefs coherent will require a constant process of questioning which beliefs need be accepted and which ones rejected. There is much more to these discussions of truth.(21) For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that the realists and the postmodern pragmatists seem to agree on one thing. We must dispense with the assumption in Plato's thinking that truth is a categorical notion. No belief can be considered absolutely certain. Instead, we must replace the categorical notion with a one that allows for relative degrees of evidence, support, or justification. Instead of viewing true or false beliefs as statements that are really just categorically true or false, we need to think of beliefs as either reliable and practical guides or unreliable and impractical guides for dealing with the physical world and each other. I believe this view is correct. By a reliable belief we mean, then, a belief that seems to have certain features of evidence, support, or justification such that, based on past experience of evaluating beliefs, we find good reason for believing the belief will continue to work with our other beliefs and with new beliefs that result from novel experiences. For instance, as we will see in the next chapter, a reasonable person ought to believe that the statement, "Cigarette smoking is a principal cause of lung cancer" is a reliable belief, even though it could be found to be false someday. You will probably need more examples before you understand this concept, and the next chapter attempts to give you concrete examples of reliable beliefs and techniques of support for them. For now, consider that what I am describing is an attitude toward truth as well as a theory of what it is. This attitude is consistent with the general theme of this book: our disagreements and confusions will have a better chance of resolution if we use unforced, open, focused discussions, and a free but disciplined following of reasoning trails. Because there is a little bit of Plato in all of us -- we find it easier to have security, closure, and finality -- it will be healthy for us to think hypothetically rather than categorically, and to question, to be open, to be humble about what we think is true. By hypothetical thinking, I mean a process that says, "We have a good reason to believe that X is true, because we have a good reason to believe that Y is true, and we have a good reason to believe that Y is true, because we have a good reason to believe that Z is true." And then, "OK, if you agree that the reasoning trail just outlined is valid, that we stayed on track and did not let our biases or any irrelevant coloring tricks distract us, let us now think together whether we need to question Z also, or do we have good reasons to stop here?" This attitude is rare because it implies the need for a mental toughness that is difficult for most people (including philosophers) to accept. Our need for security makes it difficult to accept a constant hypothetical tentativeness where at no point along our reasoning trails can we stop and rest and say this is completely true. By denying that anything is completely true, we have to be constantly ready to think again, for if something were completely true no further thinking would be necessary. The Platonist in the back of our minds usually wants more than this. Just because we agree tentatively on where to stop, doesn't mean we are correct about what we agree on. Lots of people agree that God exists, but they could be wrong. And lots of people agree that God does not exist, and they also could be wrong. But what is advocated here is not mere agreement. There is a difference between mere agreement that is forced, the result of a trick, or the result of unanalyzed biases and mere cultural upbringing, on the one hand, and agreement that is the result of painstakingly following different trails that have been open to free inquiry. Both kinds of agreement could be wrong. But the one that is the result of free and disciplined inquiry allows for more opinions and rigorous tests, and permits the novel stimuli of experience to "speak" to us. This approach may be based on a kind of faith, but I would argue it is a reasonable faith. We believe that the more a belief is made to stand up to genuine tests, the more likely it is to be reliable. In 1616, the Catholic church decided that Galileo's ideas of a moving Earth and planets that were physical places should be prohibited from being taught and discussed. Because the church was one of the most powerful political institutions in the Western world, and because it funded a great deal of scientific research, this action was of great consequence. At the time, the church had some good reasons for believing that Galileo's ideas might be wrong. There were many unresolved issues, and even Galileo was unsure of the exact mechanism that would move our heavy Earth through space, keeping it in orbit around our Sun so far away, and keeping all of us from flying off the Earth because of its great speed of rotation. (No Newtonian conception of gravity yet existed.) But the agreement achieved by prohibiting Galileo's ideas was then the result of a forced agreement rather than a free and focused following of alternative reasoning trails. And like the father discussed in Chapter 1 who was afraid to test his daughter at Little League baseball, the Catholic church, by cutting off access to a reasoning trail, by not testing an alternative set of beliefs, was cutting off access to possible experiences of great benefit. Bottom line time: In this book, we will
be using true belief to
mean a reliable belief, a belief so
well supported that it serves as a practical guide
for
dealing
with each other and our experience (past, present, and future).
By
reliability
we will mean a process of belief formation that is the result of both
an
ethical process -- tolerance for different opinions, promotion of open
inquiry, and undistorted communication -- and a justification process:
the belief in question has certain features of support that seem to
have
worked before in showing us beliefs likely to be reliable in the future.(22) Let's simplify. For the notion of
truth, we have three choices. Relativism -- Everything
is relative. All beliefs are true. No beliefs are wrong, because there
can be no
universal, certain, objective justification for any belief. All beliefs
are
based upon cultural influences. Absolutism -- Some beliefs
are certain, universal, and objective. See
the discussion of Plato above.
And
let's take a concrete example. Suppose you are on the
roof of a six story building. What do
you think would happen to you if you jumped? A
relativist would make
the technical point that we cannot be certain as to what would happen. If we are honest we cannot say with certainty
that we know if the law of gravity is true everywhere on earth. We
can't
be certain, because our generalization has not been completely tested
everywhere. There are billions of potential places that people could
fall and these places have never been tested! There
might be
places where if a person jumped off a building a person would not
fall. Furthermore, a
relativist
would say that gravity only seems true, because we have been
brainwashed by
our
culture to believe it is true. It is possible to overcome any cultural
belief
by learning a different way of seeing reality, by learning or
participating in
a different culture for instance. In some cultures people practice
meditation
and claim that one can learn to change one's thoughts and defy gravity
by
levitating. An
absolutist would say
the idea of relativism applied to gravity shows how silly relativism
is. We
know with certainty that if anyone jumps off a building, they will fall
regardless
of what culture they are from. It is known absolutely and universally
that
gravity applies everywhere on earth. The law of gravity is an objective
truth,
and this truth is totally independent of one's culture. Take
human beings from any culture and push them off a
6th story building. We know
what will happen. They will fall. Case closed.
Followers
of the concept
of a reliable belief would say that both the relativists and the
absolutists
are partly right. First of all, they would agree with the relativists
on the
technical logical point about certainty. This
agreement may surprise you. But we have to
be logically honest. The case-closed
argument of the absolutist may feel good, but
Before we switch to this subject,
however, we can
make a few important comments on the nature of logic and values from
this
perspective
of the nature of truth. Logic is defined in most logic textbooks
as a
study
of the principles used in correct thinking. But what is the status of
these
principles? Are they Platonic principles? Are they self-evident,
necessarily
true for all times and cultures? If Plato's conception of truth is
unrealistic
and unjustifiable, then such a conception of logic that gives an
above-it-all,
timeless, inhuman quality to its principles will be difficult to
justify
as well. Better will be a perspective that defines logic as a practical
set of principles, or a shared set of thinking tools painstakingly
derived
from history and experience, that we have found beneficial for arriving
at unforced agreement through the disciplined following of reasoning
trails.
Techniques of logical analysis are habits of adaptation that work in
keeping
us on track when we want to test our beliefs in an arena of open and
respectful
inquiry. For the
issue of values consider
the example of female circumcision. In
some cultures, young girls have areas of their genitals surgically
removed with
razor blades or pieces of glass without any anesthesia.
These areas would allow girls to experience
pleasure during sexual intercourse and this is exactly what the men in
those
cultures want not to happen, believing that the girls and later women
will
either stay virgins until they are married or remain faithful to their
husbands
when they are married. In the The
concept of a reliable
belief also supports universal rights and the goal of normative ethics,
but differs significantly with
the
absolutist approach on justification. We
definitely should endorse universal rights, but not because Tom
Jefferson (“We
hold these truths to be self-evident”) or George W. Bush are right (“we
have a
calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom”).
They might be, but the argument here is that
reason alone, without a controversial and unproven appeal to a
particular religion,
can be used to justify universal rights. The
connection between universal rights and reliable
beliefs is that the
just treatment of all people is the most There
are many cultural
traditions, but some of these traditions are “lost” traditions, such as
slavery. They are lost traditions for
good reason. The scientific evidence
became overwhelming in the 17th century that the Earth was
not the
center of the universes and that the Earth moved around the sun. The evidence became overwhelming that it was
no longer practical to believe that the Earth did not move. Similarly, the evidence over time became
overwhelming that slavery was wrong, that there is only one race – the
human
species. The
point of thinking
about values and believing in universal rights is to decide on what we
would
like all people to do -- not necessarily what they do now, but what
they should
do, what is really right, and what we would like to see in the future. Believing in universal rights also does not
mean that we have to have a law for everything. For
instance, a basic agreed upon universal right is
freedom of
religion. But it is a matter of deciding
on basic fairness for people who live on the same planet and then doing
all
that we can to instill in the minds of people (via education and moral
understanding) this sense of fairness and promoting the appropriate
behavior
whenever possible.
Concept Summary In appraising reasoning trails logicians slow our thinking down by formalizing such trails into arguments. Rather than just reacting quickly to an act of persuasion, logicians break the reasoning down into parts to see if the parts fit together well. First, we look for the main thrust of the argument, called the conclusion, and then identify the evidence offered, called the premises. Sometimes, indicator words help us in this process. Words such as because and since often indicate premises, and words such as therefore and so often indicate conclusions. We next judge the reasoning and then the truth of the premises. Not all uses of language involve arguments, so we must first distinguish arguments from other uses, such as descriptions, explanations, and unsupported value judgments. Descriptions can be true or false, but until an attempt is made to prove that what is described is true, no argument is involved. Explanations often use the same indicator words as arguments, but what follows apparent premise-indicating words such as because is a debatable set of reasons why an agreed-upon event happened. Explanations attempt to give reasons why something happened; they don't attempt to prove that something happened. In expressions such as "X, because Y," X is accepted in an explanation, whereas in an argument X is a controversial conclusion that is being argued for. Value judgments made without support are also not arguments, but they usually express concerns of great importance to us, and so they are often parts of arguments. Relativists believe that it is impossible to rationally argue for the acceptance of one value judgment over another. Normative ethicists believe that it is possible to argue for some value judgments; that some values are more rational to have than others are. In argument analysis it is also important
to pay
attention to the meaning of words, otherwise we can easily be tricked
into
believing evidence is presented when it is not, or that evidence is
stronger
than it actually is. Vague or ambiguous usage
of words easily invites incorrect inferences. Much can be assumed
unfairly
in the uncritical acceptance of particular meanings of words. A vague word or phrase can
have many meanings. An ambiguous word or
phrase has two or more meanings in a given context. At a deeper
philosophical level, because
we have
distinguished between a reasoning trail and the truth content of that
trail,
we must also pay some attention to the meaning of the word true. The
nature of truth is a great, perennial philosophical issue. The
decisions
philosophers have made about this concept have not just been part of a
detached, philosophical, ivory-tower game, but have influenced the
movers
and shakers of history. In this book, I claim that a judicious and
unpretentious
conception of truth is assumed, one that sees our goal as accepting
beliefs
that are reliable or practical guides for life. By
following
disciplined reasoning trails and encouraging unforced, open discussion,
it is possible to identify features of evidence, support, and
justification
for some beliefs such that these beliefs should be accepted as more
likely
reliable than others. This conception of truth implies an experimental
attitude, a willingness to accept fallibility and self-correction, of
valuing
hypothetical thinking and tentative acceptance, rather than categorical
thinking and a search for absolutes. From this perspective, logic is
likewise
viewed as a practical set of principles derived from past experience,
principles
that help us stay on track when we want to test for reliable
beliefs. Similarly, value
judgments on matters of great importance can be viewed as judgments on
the most
practical way of living and interacting on this planet given the
evidence.
EXERCISE I -- True or False
Determine which of the following passages contain arguments and which do not. For those that are arguments, structure each into premises and conclusions. For those that are not arguments, label each as a description, explanation, or bare value judgment. Explain (make a case for) your answers.
EXERCISE III Analyze the passages below and identify
key words
or phrases that are ambiguous, vague, controversial, or unfair. Explain
why these words or phrases need further discussion and how they could
lead
to mistaken inferences.
I. 2. False. We should resist reacting to the statements in the argument based on our personal beliefs. We should first identify the argument structure. What is the conclusion? What are the premises? Then we should judge the reasoning. If the premises are true, do they provide good reasons for the conclusion? Then we should discuss and examine whether the premises are true. 5. False. The word because can also indicate an explanation. 8. False. Meaning is linked with beliefs and the
worldviews
of language using groups. Hence, the uncritical acceptance of
definitions
of terms is as presumptive as the uncritical acceptance of beliefs.
II. 2. Explanation. Although the words because and therefore are used in this passage, the fact that a Stealth fighter operates in complete radio silence seems accepted and an explanation is being offered for it. Because we don't know for sure the intent of the reporter's question, it is possible that this is an argument and the spokesman is attempting to justify the radio silence. The radio silence is agreed upon as occurring, but whether it is controversial or not is not clear. Most likely it is not controversial and is just being explained. 6. Value judgment. Although controversial, there is no attempt to justify love as the highest value. 8. Argument. Unlike number 6, there is an explicit attempt to justify and encourage love as supreme value. The phrase it follows that is a conclusion indicator. Conclusion: We ought to value and encourage conditions that promote love. Premise: A human being becomes truly happy only when natural potential is developed. Premise: Developing other-directedness is a natural potential. Premise: The unconditional love for another is an act of other-directedness. 11. Argument. This passage is most likely an argument for a best explanation. That Venus has very few craters is being explained by resurfacing due to volcanic activity, and an argument for why this is the best explanation is offered. The conclusion is controversial; there could be other explanations, but evidence is being offered that this is the best explanation. The word thus serves as a conclusion indicator. Here, "X (Venus has few craters), because Y (recent volcanic activity)" is the conclusion. Conclusion: Recent volcanic activity on Venus must have resurfaced the entire planet. Premise: All planetary bodies in our solar system have received their fair share of meteorite hits throughout history. Premise: Unlike some other planetary bodies in our solar system, Venus is relatively free of craters. Premise: The Magellan spacecraft has detected evidence of massive volcanic activity on Venus. 19. Argument. Conclusion: Support the president and don't listen to his critics. Premise: Those who criticize the president's foreign policy, his development of a new class of offensive-deterrent nuclear weapons, and his plans to drill for oil in Alaska are just the usual suspects of left-wing crybabies who don't realize what the real world is like. Premise: It is a violent world with very real evil people in it. Premise: We will some times need to kill people before they have a chance to kill us. Premise: We need also to be more self-sufficient
in terms
of energy production so that we don't have to rely on people (Arab
countries)
who don't like us because we support Israel. III. 2. The phrase strategically withdrew is being used to color the fact that the Iraqi forces were being forced to retreat. A conclusion that Iraqi forces were victorious should not be inferred from such colored descriptions. 8. The phrase over-medicated is used to imply that the wife of a president of the United States was not doing something as serious (because her drugs were legal) as that of drug addicts who become addicted to illegal drugs. How would it sound if someone said, "I have been over-medicating myself with heroin, cocaine, and marijuana"?! 10. Although the phrases intelligent people and moral growth are presumptive, the phrase reproductive freedom is the most in need of argumentation. Those who are for legal abortion believe that a women should be free to choose to have an abortion or not, but those who oppose abortion believe that the fetus is a person and thus has a right (freedom) of self-determination. The use of this phrase colors the abortionists' position in a positive way without giving any evidence for the conclusion. Notes: 1. Often the formalization or abbreviation process itself helps a great deal to achieve this goal, because some exchanges of ideas are too "full"; full of excess and tortuous verbiage, that is. See example 2-20 below. 2. Even if we disagree on the interpretation of an argument, at least the argument interpretation that we do have can be discussed. Even if we have misunderstood the author's intention, we can learn something by analyzing the reasoning of our interpretation. 3. In general, when we attempt to persuade logically we should present evidence that we think will be accepted as true or noncontroversial. Arguments, however, can also be used to test controversial ideas by deducing or discovering implications to test. But this use of argument is different from direct persuasion. We will discuss this difference in more detail in Chapter 5 with the fallacy of Slippery Slope. 4. A consistent relativist is also committed to believe that any method of inquiry, any method of arriving at beliefs is as good as any other. This implies that we don't learn about the world or even learn better ways to learn about the world. Most philosophers of science believe that scientific inquiry and the many methodologies devised by scientists throughout the centuries since the time of Socrates are examples of learning better ways of learning about the world. We will discuss this further in Chapter 3. 5. Although the premises are controversial, the arguer apparently thinks the premises are noncontroversial or less controversial than the conclusion. Also, this series of statements is an argument and not an explanation, because the conclusion is not an accepted fact that requires an explanation. Note that a consistent relativist would be committed to saying that the beliefs expressed in this argument are as good as ones that would express more tolerance for alternative life-styles. 6. Reprinted from Newsday in the Sunday edition of the Honolulu Star Bulletin and Advertiser, May 19, 1991, B1. See also Auster's "The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism," (American Immigration Control Foundation, 1990). 7. This statement was from a foreword to a CIA report called "Japan: 2000." It was written by M. Richard Rose, president of the Rochester Institute of Technology. Although the inflammatory foreword was later removed from the final report, one wonders if the ideas have been removed from the minds of some U.S. political leaders. The story of this report was a Gannet News Service report reprinted in my daily newspaper (Jennifer Hyman, "Report to CIA: Japanese are amoral beings," Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 25, 1991, A-1). At about this same time, Edith Cresson, French prime minister, was describing the Japanese as "ants" and "little yellow men" who "sit up all night thinking how to screw us." 8. See Exercises, part II, number 4, Chapter 5, to see how the Lean Cuisine advertisement is representative of a common informal fallacy. 9. For practice, can you formalize in terms of premises and conclusion Archie's argument? Hint: Archie's defense can be reconstructed into two arguments with one conclusion being that he is not cheating and the other that he is being honest. 10. After billions of dollars had already been spent on research and development, the MX missile project was finally discontinued by President Bush and the U.S. Senate in September 1991. A year later the United States agreed to dismantle, also at great cost, those missiles already built. 11. Incidently, our Department of Defense used to be called the "Department of War." In my state, our prison used to be called "Oahu Prison." After years of controversy on prison conditions and the embarrassing fact that three-fourths of the prisoners are of Hawaiian ancestry, it is now called the "Oahu Community Correctional Facility." In China, prisons are called "labor reform departments." Prisoners, some of them members of the pro-democracy movement, are forced to labor with no retirement benefits and no union negotiations, for an export economy for products sold to Japan, Germany, and the United States. 12. Only 7 percent of the bombs used in the first Iraq war were so-called smart bombs, even though militarily screened and censored media reports left the impression that all were. There are estimates that as many as fifty thousand Iraqi civilians were killed, mostly women and children. By December 1991, more than a year after the spectacular media coverage, a Pentagon report admitted that one-fourth of all United States casualties died from "friendly fire." 13. In the 1970s during the Carter administration, after a great deal of controversy over the meaning of such terminology, the CIA was banned by law from engaging in any covert activity that would involve killing foreign leaders. After the 9/11 World Trade Center attack, the Bush administration rescinded the ban. 14. For more examples of euphemistic doublespeak see William Lutz, Doublespeak: From "Revenue Enhancement" to "Terminal Living": How Government, Business, Advertisers, and Others Use Language (New York: Harper & Row, 1989). And, The New Doublespeak: Why No One Knows What Anyone's Saying Anymore, William Lutz (New York: HarperCollins, 1997); Doublespeak Defined: Cut Through the Bull**** and Get the Point, William Lutz (HarperResource, 1999). 15. For these and other examples of cultural double standards in extramarital sex see Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee: the Evolution and the Future of the Human Animal (New York: Harper Collins, 1992), 85-98. 16. For recent scientific evidence supporting the claim that emotion and reason often work together in rational human beings, see Antonio R. Damasio, Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Grossett-Putnam, 1994). Descartes is the author of the famous statement, "I think, therefore I am." Damasio presents neurological evidence that we should replace this statement with "I think and feel, therefore I am." People who have damage to areas of the brain that affect their ability to produce emotions also lose the ability to make rational decisions. 17. Notice that in a full discussion of this issue, the term 'decriminalization' would need to be defined. In Alaska a stipulative definition was used, such that residents were allowed to legally have up to 4 ounces of marijuana for personal use. 18. If Plato were alive today he might cite as evidence the fact that during his own time there was widespread agreement that only five planets existed other than the Earth. Thus, he would argue widespread agreement over statements such as this one does not guarantee truth. Something more is needed. 19. We can see the influence of this attempt in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident. . . ." 20. Although not a realist in the modern sense, Plato, for instance, believed in a nonphysical reality in which self-evident thoughts and concepts existed. Our thoughts about good would be true if they corresponded to concepts in this realm. Plato also ended up believing that the physical world was not even real; that it was only a kind of "shadow" of this other realm. 21. For further
reading on
these subjects, see Larry Laudan, Science and Relativism
(University
of Chicago Press, 1990); Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism,
and
Truth (Cambridge University Press, 1991); Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton University
Press, 1981);
Truth and Progress: Volume 3:
Philosophical Papers (Cambridge University Press, 1998), and Ronald C. Pine, Science
and the Human Prospect (Wadsworth, 1989), and second (web) edition. 22. Philosophers call the study of this justification process epistemology. Literally, the study of, or justification of, knowledge. Ronald C. Pine |