Month: October 2007

  • ANOTHER GOOD SITE FOR FIRE NEWS

    This website keeps up on late-breaking announcements: registering cell phones for reverse 911, when it’s safe to go back to what communities, where to keep your horses, etc.

  • CALIFORNIA WILDFIRE NEWS

    Here’s a blog that’s keeping close track of the Witch Creek Fire in north San Diego County.

  • WHAT LAW SCHOOL IS *REALLY* FOR

    Here’s a paragraph from an article in today’s news about charges brought against a famous performer: “[His] Las Vegas attorney, David Chesnoff, refused to give specifics about the charge. “If in fact those are the allegations, unfortunately false allegations are all too often made against famous individuals,” Chesnoff said. “But we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably.”

    “IF IN FACT THOSE ARE THE ALLEGATIONS.”

    Remember your formal logic and, in particular, hypothetical syllogisms? They start with a conditional: “If A, then B.” Those are followed by one of two valid conclusions: “A, therefore B,” (modus ponens, or affirming the antecedent) or “Not B, therefore not A” (modus tollens, or denying the consequent). Denying the antecedent (not A, therefore not B) or affirming the consequent (B, therefore A) is invalid.

    In Chesnoff’s statement above, we are offered a conditional:

    IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.

    Next, let’s suppose confirmation comes from the FBI shortly that those are indeed the charges. Now we’ll have this hypothetical syllogism (modus ponens):

    IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
    Those are indeed the allegations.
    THEREFORE, false allegations are often made.

    I really doubt that the reporters at the news conference were asking whether false allegations are often made. It’s an irrelevant argument.

    Or we have this one (modus tollens):

    IF those are the allegations, (THEN) false allegations are often made.
    It is not the case that false allegations are often made.
    THEREFORE, those are not the allegations.

    Was anyone asking whether those were the charges? I doubt it.

    Perhaps the attorney is simply making a badly worded syllogism thus:

    IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
    They are false (“we are confident the investigation will conclude favorably”").
    THEREFORE, those are the allegations.

    That would be both dumb (no one was asking whether those were the charges) and invalid (it’s affirming the consequent).

    But perhaps the attorney only meant a simple (and valid) modus ponens:

    IF those are the allegations, (THEN) they are false.
    Those are the allegations(assuming confirmation from the FBI).
    THEREFORE, they are false.

    And of course, this is the obvious intent of the attorney, a simple denial of the truth of the allegations. But this is the dumbest of all. Why is the attorney reluctant to admit that those are the allegations — why the conditional, why the hypothetical? Why not just say, “those allegations are false and we’re confident things will turn out fine.” Chesnoff admitted there was an investigation — shouldn’t he have said, “alleged investigation” if he’s so reluctant even to admit to the existence of those allegations? What are the FBI investigating, if the allegations themselves are only alleged? What, the FBI has been called in to determine whether there are in fact some allegations? False allegations may be damaging to famous people but not as damaging as being represented by idiots.

  • NO! ANYTHING BUT THAT!

    Some news is just too, too horrible. But you know, at least the writers are strong and resolute, in spite of their great reluctance to inflict such inhuman cruelty on the world. I’m so glad to see some nobility, some greatness, some real strength, especially among such a necessary class of people.

  • HERETIC!

    This guy has forgotten what happens when you deviate from cultural orthodoxy. Even if (maybe especially when) that orthodoxy (like the one from which he’s deviated) is irrational and groundless.

    SERIOUS, NON-HUMOROUS, BORING, BUT PERHAPS NECESSARY EDIT:

    My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Watson is right. I have no idea whether he’s right or just a cockeyed lunatic, and I couldn’t care less. I have exactly zero interest in defending him. My point is entirely about the inconsistency of atheistic evolutionists being angry with him. Their orthodoxy is one of radical egalitarianism — everyone is the same — which is an irrational and groundless position for an atheistic evolutionist to hold: if evolution is true, what’s unreasonable about Watson’s position? And their angry response at someone who denies radical egalitarianism is likewise irrational and groundless: if atheistic evolution is true, then there is no morality, and so what grounds are there for accusing anyone of wrong

    I’m not saying I think they should be reasonable and accept Watson’s argument; I’m saying that if they don’t like his argument they should think about the fact that arises from their own premise.

    All this presupposes, of course, that this angry response is coming from non-Christians. If it’s coming from Christians, then my point doesn’t apply, because Christians have grounds for moral judgments such as all these people are making about Watson (whether their judgments are right or wrong doesn’t matter — they have grounds for making them).