Philosophy
I've been fascinated by the dust up over Charlie Rangel's proposal to bring back the draft. Designed to shame those who rushed to war, it drew only eye rolls or looks of bemused puzzlement from them. From his own side, however, a significant portion of the reaction was strong and negative -- check out Brock at Battle Panda and Dave at Quaker Agitator for a couple of smart folks who showed more than mild distaste for the idea.
I've been thinking about the underlying logic of the discussion. What Congressman Rangel was trying to do was to employ something like what we call a reductio ad absurdum argument (Latin for "reduce to the absurd") where we prove a sentence is true by assuming it is false. It works like this:
A weaker form of this type of argument is the "poison pill" where the resulting consequence is not a contradiction, but simply a proposition you know your interlocutor will be unwilling to accept. That was what the Congressman was trying to do, making the possibility of legislators own children or the children of their more well off constituents the ones who might end up in the line of fire.
None of this, of course, was lost on those on the left who objected to Rangel. So what was the problem? Rangel's entire move was based on the fact that reinstating the draft is a non-starter. But the fear is that the pill is not poisonous enough. If one could imagine a President whipping up sufficient frenzy around false claims in order to invade another country, if you could imagine people in this age being arrested for simply holding a sign that opposes those in power, if you could imagine not only having public debate over the moral permissibility of torture, but having that debate so skewed that those opposing torture are seen as the far-out wackos, then something as mundane as the draft hardly seems the absurdity needed to make the argument work. Everyone sees the point the Congressman is making, but it seems that in these times it is us that have already been reduced to the absurd, rendering the argument ineffectual. It harkens back to Alice's conversation with the catepillar wherein she said,
- Ultimate Dr. Seuss Geek Topic
In The Cat In The Hat Comes Back, the Cat comes returns to visit the brother and sister during the winter-time when they are tasked with shovelling a large amount of snow. The Cat goes into the house and takes a bath, leaving a large ring around the bath...
- Valid Arguments Vs. Sound Arguments
Validity and soundness are one of the most important terms in logic. How to distinguish between deductively valid and invalid arguments as well as between sound and unsound arguments? The definition is very much straightforward and it is all that is needed...
- Logical Fallacies Classification - Formal And Informal Fallacies
Logical fallacies are classified in many different ways since there is still no agreement between thinkers for that matter. What are logical fallacies? The best definition of a fallacy in logic is an argument with poor reasoning (critical thinking rules...
- What?s The Point Of Arguing About Art?
We?ve all been witness to the following type of conversation: Anthony: Have you heard the new so and so album? Maria: Yea, it?s wack. So and so is falling off. Anthony: You?re trippin?. Did you listen to track 10? It?s fire. Maria: Yea, I listened. That...
- Equal Justice?
This was swift congressional action. Is Congress trying to spruce up their image. NOT. Do recall the former Republican Party [GOP] House Majority Leader from 2003–2005...Tom DeLay who was charged with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws...
Philosophy
Rangel's Reductio
I've been fascinated by the dust up over Charlie Rangel's proposal to bring back the draft. Designed to shame those who rushed to war, it drew only eye rolls or looks of bemused puzzlement from them. From his own side, however, a significant portion of the reaction was strong and negative -- check out Brock at Battle Panda and Dave at Quaker Agitator for a couple of smart folks who showed more than mild distaste for the idea.
I've been thinking about the underlying logic of the discussion. What Congressman Rangel was trying to do was to employ something like what we call a reductio ad absurdum argument (Latin for "reduce to the absurd") where we prove a sentence is true by assuming it is false. It works like this:
- Assume that sentence A is false.In its strongest form, denying A leads to impossible consequences meaning that A must be true.
- Adding in the truth of "not A" to what we already know must lead to a contradiction "B and not B"
- Contradictions cannot be true
- Therefore, since accepting "not A" leads to a logically untenable (absurd) position, A must be true.
A weaker form of this type of argument is the "poison pill" where the resulting consequence is not a contradiction, but simply a proposition you know your interlocutor will be unwilling to accept. That was what the Congressman was trying to do, making the possibility of legislators own children or the children of their more well off constituents the ones who might end up in the line of fire.
None of this, of course, was lost on those on the left who objected to Rangel. So what was the problem? Rangel's entire move was based on the fact that reinstating the draft is a non-starter. But the fear is that the pill is not poisonous enough. If one could imagine a President whipping up sufficient frenzy around false claims in order to invade another country, if you could imagine people in this age being arrested for simply holding a sign that opposes those in power, if you could imagine not only having public debate over the moral permissibility of torture, but having that debate so skewed that those opposing torture are seen as the far-out wackos, then something as mundane as the draft hardly seems the absurdity needed to make the argument work. Everyone sees the point the Congressman is making, but it seems that in these times it is us that have already been reduced to the absurd, rendering the argument ineffectual. It harkens back to Alice's conversation with the catepillar wherein she said,
"being so many sizes in one day is confusing."When one lives in Wonderland, one's definition of absurd must be adjusted. So to Congressman Rangel and most of the rest of everyone, a very merry unbirthday to you.
"It isn't,' said the Caterpillar.
"Well, perhaps you haven't found it so yet," said Alice; "but when you have to turn into a chrysalis--you will some day, you know--and then after that into a butterfly, I should think you'll feel it a little queer, won't you?"
"Not a bit," said the Caterpillar.
- Ultimate Dr. Seuss Geek Topic
In The Cat In The Hat Comes Back, the Cat comes returns to visit the brother and sister during the winter-time when they are tasked with shovelling a large amount of snow. The Cat goes into the house and takes a bath, leaving a large ring around the bath...
- Valid Arguments Vs. Sound Arguments
Validity and soundness are one of the most important terms in logic. How to distinguish between deductively valid and invalid arguments as well as between sound and unsound arguments? The definition is very much straightforward and it is all that is needed...
- Logical Fallacies Classification - Formal And Informal Fallacies
Logical fallacies are classified in many different ways since there is still no agreement between thinkers for that matter. What are logical fallacies? The best definition of a fallacy in logic is an argument with poor reasoning (critical thinking rules...
- What?s The Point Of Arguing About Art?
We?ve all been witness to the following type of conversation: Anthony: Have you heard the new so and so album? Maria: Yea, it?s wack. So and so is falling off. Anthony: You?re trippin?. Did you listen to track 10? It?s fire. Maria: Yea, I listened. That...
- Equal Justice?
This was swift congressional action. Is Congress trying to spruce up their image. NOT. Do recall the former Republican Party [GOP] House Majority Leader from 2003–2005...Tom DeLay who was charged with criminal violations of state campaign finance laws...