Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Liberal Modus Ponens Versus The Republican Modus Tollens
Source:
Blog Here Now
URL Source: http://www.blogherenow.net/
Published: Sep 25, 2011
Author: Larry A. Herzberg
Post Date: 2011-09-27 12:30:42 by lucysmom
Keywords: None
Views: 6748
Comments: 12
In my previous post, “The Republican Modus Tollens”, I pointed out that arguments apparently having the valid form (1) If P then Q (2) Not-Q (3) So Not-P allow for serious irrationality when P represents a matter of well-confirmed scientific theory and Q represents a prescriptive policy preference or a tenet of religious faith. So, to use one of the examples from my previous post, we have arguments about climate change that seem to be guided by the following pattern of thought- (1) If climate change is occurring, then we should regulate CO2. (2) We shouldn’t regulate CO2. (3) So climate change isn’t actually occurring. Of course, probably no opponent of climate change has ever explicitly made just this argument. My point is that the arguments they do make are evidently motivated by some such pattern of thought. Representing the pattern this way makes clear that they are often reasonable enough to recognize that if climate change were occurring, then we (perhaps) should regulate CO2. The problem is that they also very strongly desire not to regulate CO2 (perhaps for quite defensible reasons, such as worrying about the economic effects of such regulation), and this very strong desire against a possible policy choice, along with the normally valid modus tollens pattern of thought, leads them irrationally to deny a well-confirmed theory. In order to do so, they must massively over-weigh evidence contrary to climate change, sometimes fantasize about global conspiracies of scientists, and so on. It is this last move – the irrational denial of a scientific theory – that indicates they are being guided, at bottom, by strongly held policy positions and this modus tollens pattern of thought, or something similar to it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
#2. To: lucysmom (#0)
Deniers actually KNOW that the science is sound. They are simply willing to trade it for short term economic gain...
This sums up erica's nasty little existance nicely.
Nothing like demonstrating the inability of leftists to face reality. LOL. You might as well close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and stamp your feet on the ground, all while screaming "it's TRUE, it's TRUE!" LOL. ***Psssssst*** Hey dummies, a little HINT for you:
#7. To: war, Capitalist Eric (#6)
Hee hee, Capitalisp eDick moved me to the top of his ping list of infamy. Sniff.. sniff... what an honor... I mean.... I'm just terribly moved. Thanks erica. Now I expect at leat two cut and paste charts showing the smoke and mirror act of you bozos denying global warning for giving you this recognition for your admiration of me. ;-D
Wow...the sun provides heat? Whoda thought? Certainly not these guys, eh JR? Figure 1: Global temperature (red, NASA GISS) and Total solar irradiance (blue, 1880 to 1978 from Solanki, 1979 to 2009 from PMOD).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: war (#2)
"Deniers actually KNOW that the science is sound. They are simply willing to trade it for short term economic gain..."
#6. To: Ferret Mike, sneakypete, lucysmom, mininggold, war, Fed Mertz, A K A Stone, Badeye, jwpegler, CZ82, nolu chan, hondo68, eskimo, socalv8, Mad Dog (#4)
war: Deniers actually KNOW that the science is sound. They are simply willing to trade it for short term economic gain...
loonymom: Do they know they're kicking the cost down the road for their children and grandchildren?
rat-boy: This sums up erica's nasty little existance nicely. 
Replies to Comment # 6.
#10. To: Capitalist Eric (#6)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]