|
|
|
« Baseball at the Quarter-Mile | Main | A Topic So Terrible, It Can't Even Be Discussed » May 19, 2003Argument and Inductive ReasoningSteven Den Beste is talking about religion in the wake of some foolish criticism by the aptly dubbed Raving Atheist. While Steven's explanation of how he came to his conclusions makes fascinating reading in its own right, I'm more interested in calling attention to his prolonged discussion of the differences between deductive and inductive reasoning. As Steven gives a detailed description of what deductive and inductive reasoning comprise, I won't try to reprise his work here. The important issue is that inductive reasoning is relevant to far more than the question of whether or not there is a God. While deductive reasoning will, in my opinion, always be the preferred method for resolving issues, it is rarely capable of so doing. Inductive reasoning is the tool of choice for addressing most of the issues bloggers are fond of discussing. For a time last year, I frequently argued political points with natasha of the watch. Eventually I gave up on it, because it became clear we were never going to come to an agreement on the issues. As I pointed out at the time, it was impossible for us to agree unless we were to change our underlying axioms. For example, I value individual rights to property far higher than natasha, and so I am far less amenable to the state redistributing wealth than she is. But I can't prove to anyone that she's wrong, anymore than she can prove that I'm wrong, or that Den Beste can prove that God doesn't exist. The dispute doesn't exist because one side is stupid or ill-informed, although that's a common assumption by both sides. The dispute exists because two people can take precisely the same inputs, apply them to the same problem, develop completely different solutions. Each solution, perversely enough, can even be correct, because there is no right answer. (Relax, we're not taking the path of moral relatavism here.) The assertion that it is wrong for the state to take money from some and give it to others is, by its nature, impossible to prove or disprove. It all comes down to what you value most, i.e., what axioms you work from. If one of your axioms is that private property should be protected above everything else, then you'll agree with that statement. If you subscribe to an axiom that posits the welfare of the group over the welfare of any individual, you'll be wholly opposed to it. And it is impossible, using inductive reasoning, to prove or disprove. This is not intended to suggest that there's no place for deductive reasoning in political discourse. It is easily possible to construct experiments to test various political ideas, for example. The Soviet Union ran a prolonged experiment on communism that objectively discredited communism. Proponents of free markets can point to where free markets have helped poor people become rich (while opponents can point to the workers who lost their jobs because manufacturing was sent overseas). These are facts that can be used to buttress or undermine arguments. But when it comes down to the basest political arguments, we always return to axioms. In my example of free trade, is it right to send jobs overseas at the cost of employment here? I can use facts: the cost of producing widgets will drop if the jobs are outsourced, therefore bringing great benefits to the consumers. Providing jobs overseas also helps to create more markets for products, which means more jobs for everyone in the long run. But if you hold to an axiom that states jobs for Americans are more important than lower prices, my arguments in favor of free trade aren't going to convince you otherwise. So what does all this have to do with blogging and political discussions? It's a simple reminder that, while some of our political opponents may, in fact, be stupid, the fact they don't agree with our arguments isn't proof that they are. When discussing any question, political or otherwise, it's crucial to identify the key axioms that buttress your arguments and discern whether or not both sides concur with those axioms. Without that step, the discussions will go right past each other, because each argument is correct within the context of that side's axioms. And, as even a cursory exploration of the blogosphere will reveal, a great deal of sound and fury can be expended on arguments that will never address the primary points of contention. Posted at May 19, 2003 03:40 PM
Comment policyI apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog. Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsWell, then, how come our arguments don't lead nowhere?
Did I mention that I just did the bottom 45 miles of the long trail? I am less than 60 miles away from section hiking it. How would you feel about finishing it off with me? Let me know. I think it would be fun. -Enrak Posted by: Enrak at May 19, 2003 04:49 PM Fair question. I'd say that it's possible to make progress in arguments with people who don't share your axioms if you're willing to discuss those axioms. It also helps if you're willing to concede the possibility you're wrong. As for the Long Trail, I'd love to. I've never done the trail from Mount Mansfield north, although I don't know if that's the same section you're missing. In any case, I think that would be a great time, although the timing might be difficult. Give me a call. Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at May 19, 2003 06:03 PM Meta-discussion! I'm very fond of meta-discussion myself. :) Would you care to offer some discussion on how to identify said axioms? (You'd be surprised how often I've had a conversation die at the mere suggestion that a discussion begin with a "definition of terms." Posted by: Anne at May 21, 2003 12:05 PM Anne, that's a tough one. I'll give it some thought and put it up later today. Offhand, though, I'd say you probably don't want to kick off the discussion that way, precisely because of what you mentioned. Stay tuned. Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at May 21, 2003 03:06 PM Ok, I looked up the word “Axiom” and here is the definition: well-know saying/obviously true statement. Posted by: Rook at May 21, 2003 05:38 PM Rook, I see your point, but don't all of us have certain beliefs that we treat as axioms? To me, it may be axiomatic that people have the right to do what they want with their own property. Others clearly believe that what people do with their property should be decided by the state. Now there's no axiom common to each of us, but individually, aren't those each axioms? Posted by: Andrew Olmsted at May 22, 2003 07:32 AM I'm probably nit picking here, but "well known" and "obviously true" would, for me, indicate that the saying is true for all members of a culture, group or organization, thus eliminating the individuality to which you are referring. Posted by: Rook at May 24, 2003 06:19 PM As I pointed out in my response to Den Beste yesterday, 1) my proofs against the Christian god rely upon deduction -- the identification of contradictions in the meanings of the term used to define "God" -- not induction, 2) even Den Beste concedes that deduction disproves at least some Christian gods, 3) Den Beste's only argument against deduction is that there MIGHT be some definitions of the Christian god that it doesn't refute -- but he doesn't specify which those might be. As I indictated in my original post, Den Beste “places belief in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic Gods on the exact same philosophical shelf as invisible pink unicorns, square circles, astrology, Santa Claus, Leprechauns, the tooth fairy, the Wiccan God and Goddess, Siddhartha and Zeus.” He has confirmed that he believes that creationists are "idiots," I'm sure he knows that the notion that a god decided to have a son just 2,000 years ago (after waiting somewhere between 20 billion and an infinite number of years) to effect a bizarre salvation-by-belief scheme is every bit as "idiotic" as any 6,000-year-old-earth creation theory. In any event, the disproofs of the Christ-myth and creation-myth would BOTH be inductive, so it's clear the the induction/deduction distinction isn't really the one Den Beste relies upon for saying that Christian belief is just as good as atheistic belief. And, as I've noted, the Christian god, in addition to containing an empirical, inductive component (the historical Christ) also contains deductive components (the definition of God's powers) which is subject to logical disproof. Posted by: The Raving Atheist at May 29, 2003 02:44 PM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
