If you read my posts, you know I frequently complain that no proof was given in support of a particular political or ethical position. The argument virtually always made is a consequential one: look at the past and see what happened. Did the position taken cause certain things to happen (higher or lower unemployment, improved or reduced stock market indexes, increased or reduced crime rate, etc.). But that argument is logically fallacious in a number of ways, which make the argument nonpersuasive, nonconvincing.
The first logical error is that the fact that A was followed by B does not mean that A caused B to happen. A thousand other things were going on at the same time, and any one of them, or combination of them, may have caused B to happen.
Second, even if it can be shown that A caused B to happen in the past, that is not proof that it can and will make it happen in the future. People, circumstances and other influential factors may have also changed.
Third, the fact that something "good:" happened after a certain policy was implemented does not prove the policy is a right one. Slavery may have lowered the unemployment rate, but slavery is wrong. The death rate increased after America entered World War II, but entering the war was the right thing for America to do. The "rightness" of a political policy must stand on its own. The Founders knew that and so spoke of "truths" that were self-evident. Proof is all about truths. How do you prove something? You point to something in reality, that's the truth, and say, "See".
Today, proof has been tossed by the wayside. Few need it to stridently proclaim their point of view. As a mater of fact, the need to prove political ideas is no longer even discussed or talked about. It's been 100 years, at least it seems that long, since I 've heard anyone offer proof to support his or her political beliefs.
What to do if you hear a proofless political pundit pontificating? Say adios!
No comments:
Post a Comment