What exactly do we mean by ‘fake news’? There are two definitions being used at the moment and I think knowing what they are will clear up some confusion, a confusion that leads to unnecessary arguments. According to some, ‘fake news’ refers to a claim that turns out to be false. The term ‘news’ is taken to be synonymous with assertions about the world. If I told you that I am 5 feet tall and live in Bermuda, I would be saying something false, the ‘news’ of my height and location would be ‘fake’. On this view, anyone can be guilty of fake news. Those who hold this view can…
-
-
Scrapping Over Crime: How Assumptions About Human Nature Explain Political Divisions
In clear-cut cases of crime, terror, and other instances of wicked human behavior, you’d think we’d all be on the same page. But we’re not. We argue over it, especially if we talk politics. It seems we can all call something bad, but when we talk about what we or the government should do about it, we can’t agree. Why not? The answer is fairly simple and comes down to our views of human nature. In other words, the argument is not primarily political but a question of worldview. Consider any event in which a person has done some immoral action. Now, consider why the action was taken. What is…
-
Writers Who Speak as if They are Other People
For some writers, “the author suggests…” “It is argued…”, and “so and so says…” are all a waste of writer’s ink and reader’s time. Why not cut the padding and just write as if you are the person whose work you are writing about? Cornelius Van Til, King David, and the president all do it. The trouble is that it is very easy to confuse voices. Consider the president’s recent tweet: I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017 Upon first reading, it sounds awfully like the president…
-
Cultural Appropriation: Problem?
I am a Brit living in America. My favorite restaurant is Cracker Barrel, I display a large star spangled banner in my study, and occasionally practice my ‘mercan accent (much to the embarrassment of my wife). I am constantly appropriating a culture not of my own. But then I’ve been doing it for years. In my teens, my guitar heroes included black blues players like Albert King and John Lee Hooker. And I’m not alone: Eric Clapton, John Mayall, Gary Moore, and a host of other white Brits spent hours appropriating the sound, look and psychology of the poor black man from the delta. So, are we doing something wrong?…
-
Is Communication Compatible with Disagreement: Not without Beer and Capitulation
Heineken’s new ad couples up three pairs of strangers who disagree over feminism, climate change, and transgenderism. After the pairs construct a bar together they are given a dilemma: leave or stay for a drink to discuss their differences. So far, the ad tells us something trivially true: getting on with people is compatible with disagreeing with them. We agree! It is not entirely clear that Heineken does. The add closes with the pairs sitting down for a chat and a cold one. However, the promised ‘discussion’ never materializes. Instead, comments made earlier by one of each pair are replayed to them and, upon drinking beer, one side capitulates –…
-
The Rise of the Pseudo-Cause: A Distraction From What’s Really Wrong
I remember taking part in a massive protest at my boarding school. Almost all of us refused to eat in the school canteen. It worked – we won. Our cause? To change the catering company of the school. That was it. We did not defeat communism, institute civil rights, or remove a dictator. We merely changed our menu (and, as far as I can recall, not by much). Many people feel like they should have a big cause, some great evil to overturn, but can’t seem to find one. So they choose something that isn’t really a cause at all. They protest over nothing. Or, finding no evil of particular…
-
Earth Day: When Earth and Rationality Part Company
In honor of earth day, here are three fallacious earth day arguments: The first one suggests that scientific research strongly entails some particular government policy. It is used to suggest that any disagreement over government policy is directly related to one’s attitude toward science. Here is a formal version: If you accept science, then you accept policy P.You reject policy PTherefore, you reject science A good example of this sort of fallacy is provided by Bill Nye (a good source of silly fallacies, by the way). “All science is political” he said. And then he proceeded to bash the highly qualified scientist who disagreed with Nye’s position on the role…
-
Identity and Ideology are not Identical
S is not identical to her beliefs. S may have belief, b, that gives her reasons to perform some action, a. But she performs a and has b – she is neither identical to a nor b. If X is identical to Z, then X cannot exist if Z does not exist. If S did not have b and had not performed a, then S would still exist. Not identical, see? Thus, no one is identical to the political ideologies to which they hold. I am no more identical to my belief that governments should be punish evil behavior and build a strong military, than a lefty is identical to the…