Oh no, Politics!

 I hate talking about this. Everyone has there own view of what is or is not going on. I read the posts, I see the videos, I read the articles. About half of the USA is split with the majority (5 mil strong) going towards one of the people who ran for President. So, its been called. Time to get to bed. 

...

But its not over.

Bleep.

The final counts are not in, so the question is - what happens if the final count is for the other guy? Then the press is shown to be wrong. Then what? Also, last time there was all this talk about election fraud and hackers and such, but now - everything works just fine. That... is weird. Did ... did we fix the system?

...

I do not know. All I know is logic, and logic can not do anything with this mess as far as I can tell. The only message I have to send is one of unification, we need - perhaps now more then ever before - to have nuance - to let people say what they want to say, to hear what they put out. To have CIVAL TALKS with each other. To debate without insults. To put forth the best arguments we have, not loaded, malformed -

But... someone said something that upsets me. Time to lose my mind again...

Wait no, no come back!

Oh well. I wish I could inject us all with logic & reason.

So, here is a post I made. Not much to read here. Just some mussing.

Come next year, January 20th, we will see who really is in charge for reals I guess. Maybe.

I'm sure it will be fine...

Back to being skeptical of other things, politics tires me out.

The Presidential debate.

 Lets take a look at a debate... in this case, the Presidential debate. Yay.

First up: How to not ask a question & also how not to answer a question -click-

So the question was "Based on what you have said, and done so far, and what you would do starting in 2021, why should the American people trust you, rather then your opponent."

This question is in reference to what has been said before by each person, & whatever actions were done. Asking after this, a question of why people should trust you, and not to trust the other.

Breaking down the question this is one of emotion, of subjective nature - why trust you / not trust them. I would object to the attack of my opponent, the argument, not the person should be attacked. I could not say/would not say why not to trust them, however what argument could be given to trust me? Such a thing would be emotional in nature, far to subjective to answer, and thus I would object to this question. The moderator has asked a rather loaded and malformed question, nether person can answer without commuting at least one logical fallacy.

However, no one objected, and went forward to respond. (sigh)

Analyzing this will be rather subjective, because I am not dealing with anything but erratic dialogue here, the method is to knock down the opponent. I must try to judge if the words used are doing this, or not.

Joe Biden gave numbers of who has died. how many are currently dying. He then said his opponent said in reference to such numbers "it is what it is" this is I suppose Joe trying to give a reason why not to trust his opponent. I do not see this as being why I should not trust your opponent Joe, at best this is a reason to view him as cold hearted, perhaps, but trust plays no factor here.

Joe says of his opponent, "He has no plan" - well this is a better attack in terms of why I should not trust him, granted I do not know if this is true as its unargued for proposition, but at least you are trying to tell me why I should not trust your opponent. He then laments how long his opponent knew about C19 but did not take action - at least I infer this is what Joe is trying to do, its a bit muddled. "He said he didn't want to tell us because it would cause a panic..." , "You don't panic, he panicked" Joe says. Hold on there, Joe your saying that I should not trust your opponent because he was worried about the public panicking - okay fair enough - keeping information that could save lives might be a reason to distrust him, but I also see the value in not wanting to cause a panic in people, so that makes the person reasonable - perhaps in error, but not necessarily a reason to distrust someone. However your bit that he panicked seems that you are reaching, say what you will about your opponent but he has never panicked publicly that I'm aware of, so I am hard pressed to think he would panic privately, swing and a miss Joe. You claim your opponent did not have people in China do (X) - that might be the case, so okay, a reason to not t rust perhaps. I can't help but note that the moderator did not stop President Trump from saying "Wrong" at you, bad mod is bad. Mute yourself Mr. President! At last Joe gets into what he did or tried to do. So at last telling us we should trust you. "We should provide.." okay, so I guess your saying your opponent is not doing that/did not do that.

Overall I would rate this attack as sub-par. Why should we trust you? You gave us maybe one reason - you proposed doing something. Okay, how hard did you fight for that, did you tell the news, what actions did you take other then just proposing it in some meeting? Flesh out what you tired to do and what you DID do (if anything) but you never said why we should trust you, not really. Then go on the attack. Doing it the other way around (attack then talk about your positives) would work just as well, but it seems like you are making similar error to what Hillary did - not promoting yourself enough.

Back to President Trump.

President Trump fires back blaming China, then said he closed the country, saying that Biden did not want this. Claims a number of people agree that he did a good job. Blames fake news, and highlights that the press blames Trump, praises Biden. Mentions Swine Flu & how Biden failed during this. 

I'd say this is a massive blow to Biden, the amount of times President Trump tosses things at Biden vs how many he had tossed his way, is simply stunning. The man can win an erratic debate if nothing else.

Back to Biden:

He talks about those lost, appealing to emotion, telling us we can't trust him - but no where does he nail this down.

Clip ends.

Biden lost here. Simply put, the goal of erratic dialog is to get to the deeper basis of the conflict, we know in this case that they both want to win over the audience, here they have been asked to knock down each other with words, no matter how I try to cut this, Biden simply is not doing this, and President Trump is. Of course, you can come to your own conclusion here, the problem with this whole thing from an analysis stand point is just how subjective all of this is, attacking each other in this way in my view, should not be part of any debate. Yet, far to many times it is. Who to trust? Well we did not really get that answer. Yet, what we did see here, is a man who can knock down his opponent with words better then the other, and if that is the metric of who wins, then I have to conclude that President Trump wins this round.

I just wish these debates were logical. Ah well.

Quiet

 The quiet of night. Just the ac running next to me, no one in the world is awake but me. Alone I sit, alone I stay, this is all there is all there will be, nothing moves, just quiet sounds. The fridge hums the chair squeaks. My mind and me, along again. This is what it is. This is quiet.

A poem about it, that I did write, to quiet to even dare to type. The noise is all but gone away, it will come latter today, for now its nice and I do breath, hear the air moving it seems. Along the way I do inquire, what will change and when will it be, what will I make of this destiny? Is there anything more in life, other then all the insane strife? Yes, there is hope and love. Even if there is no god above. Just humans all around, yet none make a sound.

Quiet is where we are.

The Informal Fallacy I want to invent: "Special knowledge" / "Mind reading"

For quite some time in my videos on my youtube I've highlighted a fallacy that I called "Special knowledge" &/or "Mind Reading" this fallacy happens if a person/group claims to know (or infers to know) the thoughts/motives of the other person. 

Ie: 

"You made that video because you want to get attention." 

"You are not a Christian because you hate god"

"Republicans hate America and want to destroy it."

"You are just saying that because you do not want to know what is TRUE."

---

Do note that one does not have to SAY they are able to read your mind NOR does someone have to SAY they have special knowledge of your thoughts/feelings and so on. Its implied by the statement(s) they are making.

No one can know your inner thoughts, motives or intent. Thus - if a person/group claims to know "why" someone is doing (X) then the fallacy has been committed. 

The logical fallacies of Bulverism & Appeal to motive. are close to this fallacy, The Fallacy of Speculation is in fact called "Mind-Reading" here (click) (number 74) this is almost exactly what I am proposing. As such, mine could simply be called "Special knowledge" to avoid confusion, or maybe it is covered well enough. The idea of making new fallacies is not just mine, this webpage (click) also came up with two new fallacies - by blending other fallacies together.

Granted, none of this is, or perhaps will be recognized by scholarship, and I have zero idea how to get my idea to be even considered. 

You can always of course be skeptical of my fallacy if you want, or maybe you can help me to make it into a "real" one if you know who I would contact to get that ball rolling, or perhaps you can help me shore up the phrasing, if you can - comment on this or email me (my email is found on my youtube channel on my about page, goodness knows what would happen if I put it on this blog)

Thanks for reading. I know you just read this to make me happy.

See what I did there? ;)

The God of the Bible is still incoherent, yet people believe anyway.

200,000 to 300,000 years ago, give or take, Homo sapiens emerged from the hominid predecessors they had been, as they slowly made there way out of Africa 130,000 to 200,000 years latter, they also began to develop language 20,000 to 50,000 years after beginning that journey.

At some point Jehovah, Yahweh, YHWH, reached out, and plucked two people from among them to be placed into a garden full of things to eat, it revealed itself to these two humans, let them be tempted by a talking serpent, then when they failed the test, it kicked them out of the garden with a curse that the man would have to work for food, and that the woman would have to have (MORE) painful child birth. At this time, "sin" entered the world.

Before this point, things lived and died and there was natural disasters, all because it just was that way, but now that sin was here, now there was a reason for all that bad stuff. You see, this god of Abraham Isaac & Jacob let bad things happen before the "fall" because.... it did.

Of course, that doesn't really make sense, so actually God made two humans that already somehow knew language and were homo sapiens, and then put them in the garden, once they failed the test then evolution began due to sin and.. wait no that doesn't work... you see its... a metaphor yes- right the Genesis story is just sort of, kind of what happened. I found out I was wrong when I thought I was right, its always the same just a shame, that's all.  

So, how do modern Christian's make sense of any of this?

Well, you could pretend the world was made 6,000 to 10,000 years ago and ignore the realty of how we got to the place we are, in total denial of all evidence that we have of all the things I suppose. Plenty do this, but many do not. 

Yet, how do they, how can they possibly have the story of Genesis fit within reality? BioLogo's tries its best to do this, and when I was a Christian, I felt that these guys "got it" that they were trying to do what made sense - make seance out of what we know is true, and what these stories tell us are true. 

Still - why would God leave it to us puny mortals to do this for it? Why make the world in such a crazy way in the first place? Just what sort of all powerful being does this anyway?

Of course, Christians might have some excuse answer's to this, but I doubt it.

What happened to all the millions upon millions that existed before Jesus, and during Jesus who did not know about Jesus - when they died, what happened to them? What about the ones who were alive, yet had not heard about Jesus? What about those souls? 

Well, uh. God - had a plan for them? I guess. I mean, the bible doesn't say anything about them.

Of course, the bible does not say much about any of the world, other then the tiny part of it that God happened to visit that day. Revealing itself to a select few people. (Count the times that God reveals itself in the Torah/Old Testament...13!!! just thirteen people!!!) but you know, God wants to have a relationship with "everyone". Sure.

God loves me, I am told by those that believe, yet God doesn't reveal itself in such a way that all of humanity would know, without doubts, without questions, without the need of a book of all things. A BOOK mind you... to tell us it exists. 

Its incoherent. Yet, people believe it anyway.

I am (X), & it does not matter at all.

I see it happen all the time. A person is called something "bad" and this shuts down the conversation, it makes them an "other" it marks them, stains them. Yet I wonder, why does anyone care about words? What happened to seeing that an ad hominem is illogical?

So, screw it. I'll be all the things. I'll simply declare I am (X), then I shall ask, "What is your argument?"

I'm a racist. I'm a homophobe. I'm a islamphobe, I'm a misogynist. I'm a misandrist. I'm a troll. I'm a neckbeard. I'm a MGOTOW. I'm a incel. I'm a simp. I'm a slob. I'm retarded. I'm an idiot. I'm evil. I'm sick. I'm dumb. I'm stupid. I'm far right. I'm far left. I'm a Nazi. I'm a terrorist. I'm religious. I'm spiritual. I'm a new ager. I'm an atheist. I'm a skeptic. I'm agnostic. I'm anti semitic. I'm in. I'm out. I'm up. I'm down. I'm left, right, forwards, backwards. I'm a sloth. I'm lazy. I'm a workaholic. I'm neurotic. I'm a pencil pusher. I'm a drug dealer. I'm a drug addict. I am everything that is good, bad, & other in the whole God Damned universe.

....

So,

WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

Everything can be known via science. Everything.

A common complaint about "scientism"/"naturalism"/"materialism" is that these things assume the natural, that the first is to narrow, that only using science can not derive truths, the statement, "Everything that is known is known via science" someone might say, is itself a non-scientific statement.

However, I think this is a narrow view of what science is. Its a broad system, that includes maths, logic, testing, verification, and many processes made to try to eliminate personal bias. Its a way to dig at the world, to be critical of it, to find what it really is, not what we wish it to be.

History, some say is not science, but I beg to differ. We have forensic science, a study of the past. We have archaeology, a study of the past. Both require data collection, testing, verification and so on.
In fact, when doing history we must apply the ideas of science to it, if we read in some writing that something beyond what we know can be done now was done, we categorize that as myth, a person flying around like Superman is myth, because we have no reason to think that is even possible, then or now. Some object that this is an assumption, well - how could someone do something in the past that is not possible now? They then must assume that magic or something else allowed that person to fly, the assumption that no, its not possible is what can be observed to be, whereas the other one can not. Simply put, those who want to believe that there myth is true, will make all sorts of excuses to justify it. The one who does science only needs to show the data, the tests, the process, the results. Reality does not require back flips to prove, it does not require dodging, nor does it require excuses, its there, it can be known, though science.

Logic as well, is I think, a sub-set of science, it has a robust yet changing system, its a structured format. It can be used as a short cut, however its limited, one must still check with reality to see if the premises are true, thus one must consult science to discover if it is in fact true.

So it is my contention that everything is known or can be known via science.

Update, my views on this have been challenged, and I think that, yes this is incorrect on technical linguistic norms. I do think that we could view the above things in the category of science, although it currently is not. But, things change. Would it be useful to change to my idea? Hmm, I do not know.