Bad thoughts 1

Jamie Whyte - Bad thoughts: a guide to clear thinking.

The ambition is admirable and carries my biased approval. I expected an exposure of the kind of bad logic evident in everyday thinking, and the daily gems circulated in the media. He plans to expose 12 such fallacies in the course of the book and I've checked out 2 - so far so good:

1. Misunderstanding the authority of Authority. Persons of authority have their domains of authority. As a child your parents had the authority to dictate your bedtime. "Why do I have to go to bed now?" "Because I say so." Up to a certain age that may or may not be a fair answer. But say you should ask them "How did the Virgin Mary conceive?" then the same answer is out of the appropriate domain. Conclusion: authority should be verified. If the authority is not an expert in the field in question - say its authority is derived from expertise in another field, such as when a Nobel Laureate scientist opines about politics, or worse is simply based on power - then maybe its response should be questioned.

2. The guises of prejudice. This chapter is quite good, but also more clearly exposes Whyte's (a) anger at fallacies and (b) oversight of the role of emotion. Surely logic isn't everything? For instance faith and unexplainable religious concepts fall into this category - and Whyte has little sympathy for them. The unity of the Christian Holy Trinity, due to the transitive law operating when saying that "all three are one", is a fallacy. Sure. OK. Point taken. But your point is? Clearly the faith hinges around these types of mysteries. But then that is his point - the intrinsically mysterious is impossible, therefore false. But what if the religious should reply: "God will reveal all in the end." Then from that point of view it is no longer a fallacy, merely a postponed revelation based on faith. But Whyte won't buy that. "Conditionally deferred by an Infinite Authority", he might say, "bah!" I guess I'm trying to say his approach does not *dis*prove anything as such. His point that nothing is intrinsically mysterious is a good one though - mystery is localised, evidence can be gained in its domain. His exposure of Pascal's Wager makes good sense - he points out that Pascal's logic operates in an either/or environment (either beleive in God, or be an atheist), whereas it does not cater for any other religious possibilities - including other religions, or hypothetical, uninvented religions.

For the record, in the Chistian paradigm I am an agnostic. Based on logic it is the only tenable position. Faithwise - well here we move into a world full of nuance and intuitive understandings. There (as opposed to logically) my position is that something larger than myself is at work. But I don't know what it is. If it's the Christian God, or if it's a God of a some other religion well who's to say that I can't accept that? If it's not well, that may be OK too. Maybe it's a Collective Unconscious. I think my point is that I don't approach it from the meta-side. What I do know is that something's going on, and it's just a little mysterious, which reminds me: Mr. Whyte won't like it.

But more of that another time 'cause that's a discussion all its own.