I followed a link to a ridiculously self-serving article by a one Karen Kornbluh at the Atlantic the other day. Just reading her bio is enough to be able to determine exactly what her agenda is, and I find that overwhelmingly sad.
The article is called: “Why Are So Many Single-Parent Families in Poverty?” and the tagline reads: “Because public policy hasn’t kept up with the massive changes in American family structure.” Yep, you read that right. It’s not that there’s anything about single-parenthood that might lead to this effect. It’s lack of government intervention.
What made me happy, though, is the fact that my little sister was able to quickly and eloquently point out the most glaring logical fallacy. I’m justifiably proud of her. Here is her quote:
Am I just reading this really uncoordinated article incorrectly, or does she imply that the reason the problem exists in the first place is that the government isn’t solving it correctly?
Here I thought that the existence of a problem had to logically precede its non-resolution.
I thought so too, sis. I thought so too.
If there’s one thing that gets me, it’s poor argumentation. You should feel free to hold positions that counter my own, but you should have valid reasons for them. Reasons that are not reasons will be savaged.
Which brings us to the “hateful bigots” argument. You know exactly the kind of argument that I’m talking about: “Those who believe in ____ are nothing but hateful bigots.” We’ve seen it with gay marriage, we’ve seen it when people who refuse to vote for Obama, we’ve seen it leveled at people who want to do nothing but spend less.
The problem is that the “hateful bigots” accusation is a monumentally poor argument. For one thing, it’s an exercise in question begging. Follow the steps.
- “You disagree with me, so you must be a hateful bigot.”
- “How do I know that you’re a hateful bigot?”
- “It’s obvious – you disagree with me.”
That is circular reasoning par excellence. The next time you are tempted to call someone hateful, or label them a bigot, take a look at your reasons for doing so and ask yourself whether you’re presuming that they have no reasons themselves. They probably do.
Finally, this “argument” is ironic in the extreme. The presumption that an opponent must have no valid reasons and therefore is necessarily a hateful bigot sounds an awful lot like bigotry, doesn’t it? And it certainly isn’t nice. Dare I say it’s hateful?
I’m not sure if anyone in my readership ever bothers to read Anthony Mirhaydari, but since he is a writer for MSN (why do I torture myself with this site?), he surely has a wide readership. Unfortunately, he also pumps out some of the most useless hackery I have ever seen in the financial press. Take his article “7 Ways to Fix America” for example.
The first page of the article contains nothing but logorrhea on Mirhaydari’s part, which is understandable given that the meat of his column is mere repetition of a McKinsey policy report. I suppose when all you are doing is ripping off a think tank and calling it “journalism,” you have to pad your word count somehow. So let’s go ahead and skip to the second page. It is, after all, where the true idiocy starts.
So how can we fix America? Well according to this journalistic gem, the first is step is to “fix health care and education.” Really? So in order to fix things, we need to fix them? You don’t say!
So how do we go about this feat? According to Mirhaydari:
We need increased competitiveness, better use of technology, better management and new ways to think about how we pay for health care services to better align incentives and control costs.
Well that solves it.
Apparently the next thing we need to do is “increase innovation,” which can probably be accomplished over the weekend. You know, right after we fix education. Among Mirhaydari’s genius ideas are pouring taxpayers’ money into “alternative energy,” which might as well be called “a giant black hole.”
“Expanding clean energy tax credits” is a solution that, in addition to not being a solution, will cause its own wide-ranging set of problems. Does anyone really believe that innovation is fostered by making the tax code more complicated?
The article goes on and on with one obvious “solution” after another, replete with suspect research, piss-poor statistics, and so little elaboration that one wonders whether Mirhaydari pounded the article out during his last bathroom break. Granted, there’s a sop to reality at the end:
I realize these steps may make the solutions to tough problems sound too easy.
But then we get the idiocy right back on track:
But they’re also exactly what America needs to get back on track and create the jobs of the future, and they’re more than Congress or the White House has put out lately.
The simple fact is that until these structural issues are fixed and productivity bounces back, economic growth will disappoint.
And that’s the conclusion. So according to Mirhaydari, all we need to do to fix things is fix things. My God, man! Do you even have an editor?
I took a trip a few weeks ago, and when I was in the airport, I saw a ridiculous sight. In a poor attempt to justify their existence, the TSA offers an FAQ. Since the various questions rotate and I was unable to get my cell phone out quickly enough to snap this picture, I had to be bailed out by a helpful fellow traveler who also spotted the stupidity. Thanks to Fred Benenson, Flickr user “mecredis,” I have a picture for you loyal readers.
Remember my former post about the TSA begging the question? Well, they’re back. As you’ll recall, “begging the question” means assuming the validity of the very thing that you’ve set out to prove.
So why is it important for the TSA to check your ID? “Because identity matters.” Why does identity matter? Presumably because it’s important.
When you’re only able to justify what you do by saying that it’s justified, you know you’re reaching. Of course, that’s what we’ve come to expect from the TSA, isn’t it?
One of my larger pet peeves regarding proper use of the English language (and there are many) is the near-universal misuse of the term “begging the question.” When used in casual conversation – indeed in almost any conversation these days – all it means is “brings up the question.” For example: “John Kerry believes that the wealthy should pay very high taxes. Since John Kerry is exorbitantly wealthy, it begs the question, why did he register his yacht out of state to avoid taxes?” Well actually, it does not beg the question at all. It merely raises the question, since the scenario indicates massive hypocrisy.
So what is begging the question? Quite simply put, begging the question is a form of circular reasoning by which someone who makes a proposition requiring proof assumes the proposition to be proved is true as a premise of the argument (“petitio principii,” or assumption of the initial point). For example: “John Kerry believes that it would be good policy to restrict people’s freedom because, on the whole, restrictions on freedom produce positive results.” (“Good policy” is equivalent to “produce[s] positive results” and a proposition cannot logically be used in support of itself.)
So the next time you hear someone say that a proposition “begs the question that…” you’ll know what the true meaning of the term is. If you’re truly a pedant, you may even correct them. At this point, however, you may have recognized that petitio principii, along with all the other forms of circular reasoning, is incredibly widely used. It seems that, when one couches a proposition in enough fancy language or seemingly-complicated steps, one is easily able obfuscate the logical weight of the original premise.
Then again, sometimes you get called out. Take yesterday’s New York Times for example, which talks about the abhorrent, utterly inane use of whole-body scanners at the airport. As if it wasn’t bad enough that we’re expected to bend over and be violated by functionally retarded high school dropouts with God complexes and TSA badges, now we’re expected to be strip searched via x-ray machine? But the part where the article questions the radiation dosage is where it gets really good:
Another issue is that the devices haven’t been thoroughly tested. The T.S.A. claims that the machines have been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the Commerce Department’s National Institute for Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. But when I called these organizations to ask about their evaluations, I learned that they basically tested only one thing — whether the amount of radiation emitted meets guidelines established by the American National Standards Institute, a membership organization of companies and government agencies.
But guess who was on the committee that developed the guidelines for the X-ray scanners? Representatives from the companies that make the machines and the Department of Homeland Security, among others. In other words, the machines passed a test developed, in part, by the companies that manufacture them and the government agency that wants to use them.
Let’s sum up:
TSA: “We think these machines are perfectly safe.”
Sane Citizen: “How are we supposed to know that?”
TSA: “They’ve been tested by reputable labs.”
Sane Citizen: “To what standards?”
TSA: “The standards that the TSA and the x-ray machine companies have given us.”
Sane Citizen: “And how are we supposed to know that these standards are valid?”
TSA: “Because they’ll show us that the machines are perfectly safe.”
You can’t assume the validity of your own tests and use the tests as “proof” of the machines’ safety.
As usual, the TSA has failed us.