I’m sick of how today’s public debates work. I’ve noticed certain patterns, and feel I should spout my anger in words:
We have reached the point when people will reject logical, mathematical arguments for the purporting of their own agenda, and we can do nothing about it since they will admit importance of pure logic, but will pretend to interpret the logical flow in a different way – they will conveniently make logical mistakes. They are allowed to do this because in today’s complex society, you are ALLOWED to make mistakes.
They will either boil the argument down to rhetoric or to debates of a purely language-semantic nature, since this is what appeals to the audience. People love good acting and wordplay, even though the individual guys in the crowd may believe in logic. In the end, statements that make your heart go thump-thump with pride/anger/patriotism/strong emotions will prevail over the crowd. And logical individuals within the crowd will not dare to dissent, for fear of ostracization.
And if you tell the eloquent debator to keep the argument on a logical plane, he will invoke even more illogic against you – the concept of a god. Right, he will call you godless, immoral, etc, because the crowd associates right and wrong with what the ELOQUENT guy portrays as right and wrong, not what the LOGICAL guy says.
The eloquent guy will, upon exhausting all logical arguments, start spewing “examples”. Richard Dawkins will be compared to Stalin.
His argument :
1. Stalin was an atheist, and Stalin was evil.
2. Dawkins is an atheist.
3. Ergo, Dawkins is evil, and don’t let this bad guy brainwash our kids.
The above argument can be concisely, and eloquently (haha) summarised in one statement :
“People will often confuse Correlation with Causation”.
That’s all for now.