...consider making it this.
I'd have liked to see the concept of "rationalization" put to use in the article, and the completely false use of the term, "critical thinking", too. Wright made the case, and could have slain those two ignominies by just naming them at the proper point in his essay.
6 comments:
You linked this comment to itself, Stan.
Hmm. It works OK for me. Did you click on the word "this"?
Ah, there's the problem.
Nay, he did just fine. Anyone who introduces the word 'scidolatry' gets my vote.
I have now read and re-read Wright's essay (Stan, I hate you for linking to it; so many things I DIDN'T get done today!)
As a semi-regular participant in news discussions at places like Yahoo! News, I regularly encounter at the grass roots level most of the phenomena Wright discusses, so they're hardly new.
What I found most enlightening in Wright's essay was the clarity he provides in illuminating the history, context, progressive relationship and implications of those positions. Peering behind the illogic, exploring its roots, will provide much-needed tools for addressing it cogently. I intend to keep Wright's essay at hand in future discussions.
Not, however, as Wright notes, that it will make much difference: they've descended so far into illogic they're for all intents and purposes beyond the reach of rational argument. The only response they're capable of is their two minutes of hate.
As to your note on rationalization, Stan, didn't right cover that in his Third Step: Derationalization?
As to the false use of "critical thinking", I'm put in mind of a guy I debated recently -- a paradigmatic example of the first of Wright's Seven Footprints to Satan -- who took great pains to inform everyone how logical his own opinions were, all without ever actually providing any logical opinions, only emotional screeds. "All logical people" (of which he was, of course, one) "know this." Or, "I see you are incapable of following a simple logical trail", even though he had provided none.
And of course, when I replied with actual, bona fide, logical arguments deconstructing his rants, he replied with his two minutes' hate: I was clearly nothing more than a close-minded bigot incapable of understanding logic. Being closed to real logic made his positions, per Wright's sixth step, nondisprovable. And me a Hating McHater.
As Wright notes: "the advantage of calling all your beliefs scientific and modern" -- I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been accused of harboring "stone age" beliefs -- "and certain and proven [and, I might add, logical] when they are not is that it inflates the pride."
If I declare by fiat my beliefs to be "modern" or "progressive" or "logical" or "scientific", and yours "medieval" or "Bronze Age" bigotry, then I'm relieved of all the hard work of having to rationally defend them.
(My favorite response to the "Bronze Age" accusation, BTW, generally goes something like this:
"You're just living in the Bronze Age, bigot! Come join the rest of us in the 21st century!"
"But there's so much WRONG with the 21st century. Why would I want to?"
"Because progress, racist!"
"And what's so great about progress?"
"Duh! Because it's progress. Idiotmisogynisthomophobe!")
As I have noted before, but not recently, I always "play to the stands", meaning that I try to convince the viewer, those silent readers who don't participate but are undecided. Keeping that in mind makes it easier to remain calm and to engage using actual logic. After years of doing this it has become easy for me now. But it was a lesson I had to learn. When I started this I actually thought that I could have a conversation with Atheists based in logic propositions and conclusions. Not true. The reason I capitalize Atheism is because it is a religion of delusion.
Very few Atheists will admit or respond to a demonstration of the fallacies which they commit. They will change course as a Red Herring or otherwise try to move away from their errors without admitting them. They don't actually believe in logic, of course, they believe in winning by force, a perfect example of Will To Power.
Playing to the stands is good advice. Vox gives the same advice.
And of course there is the unassailable truth that in the whole history of Internet discussions, no one has ever conceded defeat.
So I always try to keep that in mind. I never get angry in debates (what would be the point?) but I confess I am not always successful at constraining my incredulity at the mind-numbing stupidity I often encounter. Recent case in point:
"No one has even addressed my first assertion: the purpose of sex is procreation."
"No, it's not! Have fun being an idiot, loser."
And an entire generation of biology teachers throws up it's hands and walks away in disgust.
So, no. I don't expect to change my opponent's mind. I'm just pointing out their idiocy for the record, and for any passers-by that might stumble across the thread in the future.
Post a Comment