7. Inconsistencies. Two points to be made - firstly, since there are so many contradictory thoughts available to the thinker, it is no easy job to construe an argument without any implicit inconsistenies. Having said that, many statements contain obvious inconsistencies that can be spotted with just a little thought. Good example: arguing that the government should both (a) cut taxes and (b) spend more. Since the democratic government's primary income will usually be taxes, this is an inconsistent statement. Jamie Whyte mentions several strains of inconsistencies, including implied generalisations, spurious claims that lack scientific evidence, and so-called inherent contradictions. I won't go into more detail, but a similar principle is at work in each case.
8. Equivocations. This is a beautiful exposure, and quite valuable. In chapter 6 he showed a syllogism false due to equivocation of the concept "entitlement to an opinion". In chapter 8 he expands and gives several more examples. The following sentence really says it well: "The
equivocator tries to replace hard intellectual graft with semantic sleight of hand". Semantic sleight of hand - I like that. So tempting always ... Anyway back to examples. Apparently in 1997 the new Labour government made public the surprising fact that 35% of British children were living in poverty. Since the poorest are the unemployed, and unemployed British citizens receive free medical care, free education, and free housing, even some additional cash for food and such, this is unlikely. So it turns out the new Labour party had changed the meaning of "poverty" - they actually meant "those earning less than 60% of the national median household income". Suddenly things became clearer. And if it's a matter of statistics, then the percentage of British children in poverty can be reduced by ... reducing the average income of the rich! Or almost any other economic group for that matter. Clever. And an example of equivocation.
No comments:
Post a Comment