:: Miscellaneous ::

:: Monday, November 27, 2006 ::

Defining the Term "Apologetics Oligarchy": 

 To start with, I really hope that someday I will be able to sunset this term as one which is no longer applicable to objective reality with regards to those I have primarily in mind when defining it. Having noted that, consider for starters the definition of the term "oligarchies": 

ol·i·gar·chies 1. a. Government by a few, especially by a small faction of persons or families. b. Those making up such a government.

Once you do that, then the definition of the term "apologetics oligarchy" should be self-evident. In a nutshell it is this: 

A consortium of self-proclaimed apologists for a particular weltanschauung -be it secular or religious- who have a greater interest in fostering intellectual dependence by others on them and their supposed "wise sayings" than they do in being charitable or otherwise ethically and rationally consistent. This is done as a way of building in a dependence constituency of sorts for their own personal fame and/or financial benefit from the aforementioned consitutency and the advancement of truth is secondary to the aforementioned aim if it exists at all. 

Such persons as I noted above have no interest in the foundational tenets of logic and reason and have no problem controverting them when it is convenient for them or when such disclosure somehow detracts from their standing amongst others. Similarly, concern for basic ethics and charitable treatment of others takes a backseat whenever said critics presume to be critical of someone in the aforementioned "oligarchy." 

More could (and may) be noted but that will have to suffice for now.

:: Shawn 7:11 PM [+] ::

************************************

Defining the Word "Torture" 

(Since No One Else Will) 

It is unfortunate that some intellectually dependent agenda provocateurs who like to call themselves "apologists" continue to casually throw around terms they do not bother to explain viz. what they mean. The problem with this is that it results in a nebulosity and a bunch of wasted type while these sorts blather on ignorantly and castigate those who do not subscribe to their simplistic and (dare I say it???) fundamentalist approach to these and other matters. 

I have tried to place some borders of sorts around many of the threads that make up the mosaic of this subject and provide a viable hypothesis with which to cogently explain them. This was done in an attempt to stimulate the thinking mechanism of more people and help in overriding the kinds of illogical hyper-emotionalist approaches that more complex issues often generate. Thus far, that attempt has been to little if any avail. 

With not a few people -including this person- recognizing the problem that a lack of definition involves here, I am going to propose at this time a definition of torture that harmonizes with everything I have written thus far on the subject of torture and does not do damage to the collective wisdom of the ages in the name of a novel and magisterially positivist mentally-dependent outlook.

With (i) those things in mind, (ii) in the interest of providing a lynchpin to everything I and others of similar frames of mind have written on this subject, (iii) attempting to deflate the kvetching of those who pontificate on matter of which they know so little, (iv) in the interest of clear-cutting all the reams of rubbish and circular-speak permeating certain sectors of the blogosphere, and (v) because I am beyond sick and tired of these kinds of public displays by the Jerry Springeresque clique of self-anointed "apologists"{1}, here is a working definition for the term "torture" since the agenda provocateur pundits who call themselves "apologists"{2} continually refuse to do so:

Torture: A method or methodology of seeking to obtain confessions of guilt and/or other information from someone both without just cause and against their consciences by (i) methods which can reasonably be ascertained to cause the aforementioned person the loss of bodily limbs, (ii) methods which can somehow irreversibly imperil their life, or (iii) methods which would result in a loss of their life. 

Now then if the contingent of whining agenda provocateurs have a problem with this definition, then I challenge them to provide a definition of their own contra the definition so framed above. If they cannot, then they should have the decency to admit it. If they can though and yet refuse to, then frankly, they (i) are blowhards merely interested in attention and not a seeker of truth and (ii) should shut the hell up on this issue once and for all as they forfeit by their negligence in handling this matter any credibility to speak on it whatsoever. 

Notes: 

{1} And the accompanying silence and/or public attempts to defend such garbage by the apologist oligarchs.

{2} Whom I might add have shown no interest whatsoever in these most fundamental areas of moral, ethical, and intellectual honesty.

:: Shawn 1:14 PM [+] ::

************************************

A Workable Definition of Hypothesis:

As I have used this term in the past and will likely do so even more in the future, it seems appropriate to give the term a working definition, which is what I will now do.

Essentially, in the sequence of events, any potential explanation of reality or potential guideline for success of action starts in the realm of the speculative. Such a speculation is based or built on principles or propositions of an abstract nature which serve to embolden and strengthen said hypothesis. Such abstract ideas or principles are properly referred to as theses. As a hypothesis is worked through, a key point is to look for any contradictions in the process for (if there are any), then whatever is proposed cannot be properly seen as viable since the foundational tenets of logic and reason would thereby be violated.

When the point is reached where after subjecting what has been outlined to proper scrutiny, there is no formal contradiction in the theses presented within the trajectory of the explanation given, then said hypothesis can be said to have moved into the realm of theory. Having explained the process of reason and logic thusly, I propose the following definition for a hypothesis as I have long utilized it either explicitly or implicitly:

Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.

Hopefully, this will help in providing greater precision to the readers in seeking to utilize the tools of logic and reason to come to grips with what they see around them and better enable them to analyze the facts of reality objectively. (With a mind towards providing useful solutions rather than the kind of illogical emotionalist drivel that too often is unfortunately prevalent.)

:: Shawn 4:53 PM [+] ::

************************************

Defining the Terms "Normative" and "Non-Normative":

I have in the past year explicitly used these terms to explain key differences in how one perceives issues that confront them on a daily basis. It seems appropriate in light of such frequent reference to these concepts to provide a more delineated explanation of the distinction than the one I have customarily linked to from time to time in my postings to Rerum Novarum for the past year. With that in mind, here is the distinction in a nutshell for your consideration:

Normative: Deals with what is "better" or "worse" and therefore involves a value judgment which is properly viewed as subjective in nature.

Non-Normative: Deals with what is verifiable by the examination of facts which are capable of resolving the issue and therefore is properly viewed as objective in nature.

A lot of what passes for "logical discourse" today is anything but logical. Instead, it is often an individual placing their own value judgment on an issue, circumstance, or event, etc., and therefore it is subjective or open to various interpretations. The distinction between what is normative and what is non-normative is an important tool for the person looking to utilize the tools of logic and reason and navigate the many minefields of proposed "truth" out there with the goal of separating the wheat of truth from the chaff of falsehood.

:: Shawn 9:19 PM [+] ::

************************************

Defining The Term Carter Corollary For Future Discussion (and Posterity):

Something Texas Fred wrote today gave me an idea for a shorthand expression for future discussions. Basically, he was critical of the fact that President George W. Bush's immigration policy has gotten rave reviews by former president Jimmy Carter -he of the Keystone Kops Presidency (among other infamies). The summary of Fred's response was this line:

If Mr. Peanut endorses it, it has GOT TO BE wrong...

Now obviously no one is wrong all the time; however, Jimmy Carter has a trackrecord of being so wrong so often that it is a good bet to take the opposite side of him on an issue if you want reasonably sureness of being correct. With that in mind, I propose the following terms to be utilized whenever Jimmy Carter's name comes up in the news on matters such as this:

The Carter Corollary

This can serve in the future as a kind of shorthand to say with a wave of the hand "this position is wrong because it is supported by Jimmy Carter." And by taking such a position, the odds of being right are virtually certain to be higher than the .847 slugging percentage that Babe Ruth had in the 1920 baseball season.{1} Or in summary: often enough to be consider a reliable norm on these kinds of matters and thus worthy of definition.

Note:

{1} That set a record that was almost matched the following year and remained unbroken until 2001 when Barry Bonds set a new steroid-enhanced record of .863.

:: Shawn 2:15 PM [+] ::

************************************

Defining Some Argumentation Fallacies:

Though argumentation fallacies are a subject that has been covered many times at Rerum Novarum (and will continue to be) it is not often that one finds themselves defining argumentation fallacies that have rarely been explicitly explained before. Nonetheless, here are a few that have been circulating in the blogosphere as of late:

argumentum ad aevum

If my Latin is correct here (and it may need tweaking) this is "argument to age" or claiming an authority for one's position due to being older and thus (presumably) via greater experience having the edge in argumentation. This could also be said to embrace another logical fallacy which I will now give a name to and it is this:

argumentum ad eventus

This is a variation of argumentum ad aevum and involves essentially the idea that an argument is not valid on the basis of lacking experience is what this one entails. It is akin to saying that no one can talk about a subject unless they have experience in it; ergo someone who has never abused heroin can never be credible in talking about heroin usage. Or on the ecclesial front, Pope Benedict XVI can never talk about a subject like sex because he has presumably never had any.

I am shocked that even otherwise intelligent people fall for this kind of "logic" but it happens often. At bottom, either what someone says in presenting an argument for a viewpoint has merits or demerits on the strength or lack thereof of the arguments made. That is where any and all criticisms of someone's arguments should lie, not on argumentation fallacies{1} such as the ones noted above.

Note:

{1} The above examples would fall under a classification of arguments that are fallacious even if valid rather than fallacious even if invalid: a distinction with a difference.

:: Shawn 5:16 PM [+] ::

************************************

Clarifying My Policy Viz. Private Correspondence:

Strangely enough, Rerum Novarum is fast approaching its 1800th posting and the subject about to be touched on here has never been discussed in the manner it is about to be. While normally that is not a problem, in this case it pertains to a subject which involves a principle of action which has been in force for a long time. (However, until recently your host saw no reason to delve into the matter.) Nonetheless, in light of a recent breach of the private forum conversation-wise, it seems appropriate to finally clarify for the readers the extent of how The Welborn Protocol applies to Rerum Novarum and how it is generally exercised there and on all other weblogs to which your host is a contributor to. Thus, without further ado, here is the passage in question:

Any correspondence will be presumed eligible for blogging unless the sender otherwise specifies. This is referred to as the Welborn Protocol and is a policy that will be followed at Rerum Novarum. (Though name and email information will as a rule not be posted without explicit request to do so by the sender.)

What is noted above can be characterized as what I call "general norms" in how these matters are dealt with. I cannot recall offhand blogging stuff that senders have asked not to except in the case of certain venomous sorts who have requested confidentiality in order to insult me in private while acting another way in public. It has been a long time since I have blogged some of that stuff to fisk but on occasion I will do that as a way of keeping those sorts apprised that what is kept confidential is only kept so because of my good graces if you will.

There is another principle I have always followed and essentially it is this: if someone sends me a note requesting confidentiality on a particular subject matter, I almost always consider all subsequent emails sent on that subject matter from that emailer to have the same promise of confidentiality that I make when responding to the first note in the series. The reason for this should be obvious: they had already requested the thread to be private so by logical extension subsequent installments are also covered by that cloak unless or until the sender consents at some point for that material to be posted. As a result of this, I get emails from time to time from people who would be considered (by the casual reader) "public enemies" of mine where they do not specify confidentiality and their stuff does not get posted. The reason for this is spelled out in the principle as noted above.{1} However, there is an exception to the above principle which in light of recent events bears noting; ergo I will do so in this clarification thread and at this time:

When a thread of discussion is started and someone requests privacy, confidentiality, etc. to the thread and then takes the thread itself or the conversation subjects contained in that thread public.

Once one of those things happens, the person in question has violated the private forum. For that reason, on those subjects they have revoked any previous promise I may have made to them for confidentiality. Furthermore, such revocations are retroactive to the beginning of that particular thread so anyone who tries to trap me in a promise of confidentiality with the mind to make public what has agreed to be kept in the private forum would be wise to not even try such schemes because it will backfire on them.

I take the private forum and its confidentiality very seriously. And while it is true that I sometimes post emails I receive on subjects; nonetheless, when I do this, I as a rule note at the beginning of the response that the material so sent may well be blogged at some point with the parties involved in the thread having their identities kept confidential. 

Furthermore, once a rapport has been established with someone in private, they need not worry about future threads on subjects where confidentiality has been promised as they retain the same promise as originally made to the first correspondence on the matter. An exception to this rule is what is noted in the paragraph preceding this one. With regards to the latter, it bears noting (once again) that when that kind of violation happens, all bets are off viz. any promises I have made (overtly or covertly) to keep the material exchanged on the subjects involved confidential.

In summary, I have always held that those who do not respect the private forum do not deserve to benefit from confidentiality protocols to the extent that they do not adhere to those protocols themselves. Hopefully what is noted here clarifies once again and in significantly greater detail the manner whereby your host has dealt with these matters not only from day one of Rerum Novarum's existence but even prior to its existence by not a few years.

Note:

{1} Another reason for this is my inherent sense of fair play.

:: Shawn 2:00 PM [+] ::

************************************