Eff's Rambles (Archive)


Just another thing that bothers me.

Well, in one of my older posts I mentioned the issue of appropriate timing of references to the bad behavior of others in defense of oneself and one or more parties that are a part of a debate, and here I shall touch on that breifly to make a small gripe. To all that feel it is necessary, I sincere doubt most people need a lecture about how some improper behavior is a. common; b., committed by both sides of a debate, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It adds very little to my understanding in general to remind me that "both sides do whatever," i.e., things I already know, which I admit is not much, but that type of hypocrisy is not conceptually foreign to me. It is also not very enlightened nor brilliant to bring it up. So, in the quest to be the master of fairness, if you ever read this blog post please do not bother me with this lecture. Have a pleasant whenever.


Newsweek and applying the premises.

Believe it or not, I do not have a desire to attack or blame Newsweek for the deaths that occured as a supposed excerbation that their apparently unverified story is alleged to have caused, but I cannot let stand the fallacy of at least twi premises used to attack the Bush Administration, not because I am in their camp, but because they are fundementally unfair.

First, neither a commentator nor average person is a court of law, so to apply the reasoning that violations have occured before so it is reasonable that it will occur again is to imply guilt without proof of the specific crime, allegations and past incidents are not proof, is wrong.

And that relates to the broader premise of the Bush administration is bad, so the charges mentioned in the Newsweek story must be true.

If you hate someone, and they did it before, why could they not have done it now?

It is not a matter of what could have been done but what was actually done. No amount of patterns without concrete relation to the incident in question will prove the Administration is at fault for this, let alone that it (the flushing of the Koran) even occured.


What is truth: Revised edition (Yes I know I do not know what I am talking about).

I have deleted the original and shall now try to better explain how I determine what is truthful.

It is factual that something that is true is true, hence it could not be so if it were not, that being absent or majorly so the factor of human subjective judgement in deciding it as such. But the conclusions toward what is true are not always based in centertainty, so truth must follow logic, as best as any individual or group can be logical in their analysis. Therefor truth is often a matter of the most probable from logic, as human subjective distortions are an unavoidable potentiality, whatever the fallacies of our understandings might be.

To decide what is logical the following must must be learned as best access and time allows. I apologize for the disorderliness of this list.

  • The pattern of events from which one can inductively infer the next event in the presumed series.
  • The pattern of human behavior relating to the events from which one can inductively infer the next type of behavior as it relates to the next event as it is inferred.
  • The deductive and inductively logical elements within the human and events factors which weakens or strengthens the logic of the inferrences about the human and events factors.
  • The preponderance of similarities in the supposed pattern of events.
  • The strengths and weaknesses of the similarities within each event.
  • The strengths and weaknesses should be determined by the level of logically alternative reasons for the similarities, and by the frequency by which persons appear in the event patterns, as well as the probability that said persons could appear, taking into consideration which, if any, persons have died, are too far and incapable of affecting an event.
  • Essentially, doubt must always be considered, if not, any false claim can be used to make a lie or an error seem as if it or conclusions from it are true.

The probable truth is that which we conclude from patterns established by the level of counterveiling reasons for each element within the pattern.

When we cannot conclude logically otherwise, we are left with the objective and probable truth.

We might not always be obligated to accept and agree with the probable, but if we act in strong opposition to it and perhaps what stems from it, we take a great risk.


On Secularists

Well, I am not going strongly into the religion and state separation debate, nor shall I at this time try to define what it is to establish, or respect an establishment, of religion by a state. I also will not go deeply into the similarities and differences between secularists, so far as it is a philosophy and ideology, and the opinions of conservatives, liberals, et al. But, on the subject of human reasoning, its value and why it is important that it supersede religious doctrine, at least in when creating legislation and enforcing law and order, I think, supposing the following is accurate (at least enough), there is a kind of irony.

Religions are often developed slowly, formed from the minds of several people, and from the indirect influence of even more of them. The mores of societies past, perhaps present, evolve and devolve the religious' messages. Generally, religions are conservative in their progress, sometimes totally conservative, hence there is no progress in some, most, or all areas. But, while the development of a religion might not be democratic, and their creators, being men and not gods (presumably), might not always be the most brilliant and qualified of persons, religions are often accepted by the masses. That brings the question of whether or not those that follow religion are being unreasonable, thinking without enough of their rational left hemisphere. I cannot say. Others can debate what is rational, but what I can say is that there is an irony in the idea that human reasoning would be superior to the "archaic, draconian, flawed tenets, et cetera," of religion, when so many humans (it is from our collective ideas that we form our societies of reason) accept religion. I am not sure how much difference in societies there would be. And that might be the agenda here, if I can be forgiven for sounding conspiratorial, that it is less about the reasoning of people than the goals of the philosophical secularists. If societies do not change significantly by the absence of religions in state matters and beyond (to wherever) the effort to limit its influence would have been a failure. It would then appear that people and many parts of religions were in agreement, and that human rational thought was never as miniscule in the religious as some might think.


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click