Richmond Area Free Thinkers Society

May Meeting

May 10, 2008

Location: Fifth Street Bagel

Time: 11:00am - 1:00pm
Date: Saturday May 10 2008

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm and is filed under Events, Meetings, Top Nav. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Expelled: no reasoning or integrity allowed

The other day I was browsing Kerasotes’ website and I noticed that the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was featured prominently in the “Coming Soon” section, receiving billing above even the next Chronicles of Narnia movie.

This was hardly the first exposure to this movie that I have had. I’ve been following it’s progress through other blogs and websites for a while now. But it suddenly made it a lot more real, and close to home. Would we really be getting Expelled shown here in Richmond?

The synopsis of the movie is this: Intelligent Design is the position that everything we see around us in the natural world must have been the product, at some level, by an unidentified supernatural designer, and that traditional solely-naturalistic explanations are insufficient to explain the complexity we see around us. Those individuals who support Intelligent Design are constantly being suppressed by the proponents of “Darwinism” (Stein’s word for “Evolution / Naturalistic worldview”). Darwinism is also “necessary, but not sufficient,” in the words of David Berlinski, for the horrible atrocities of Hitler’s Third Reich.

But of course, this movie really isn’t a documentary so much as a propaganda film. With recent reviews done by Michael Shermer & John Rennie of Scientific American, and a very fresh Copyright Infringement lawsuit pending, the contents of the movie are almost moot compared to the details surrounding it.

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 10th, 2008 at 1:33 pm and is filed under Editorial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Critical Thinking in a Democracy

We Americans are blessed in that we are participants in the greatest experiment in democratic living ever to exist on planet earth. Citizenship in this marvelous venture comes with a cost. That cost is that we are periodically obligated to take part in our democracy by voting. Beyond simply voting, however, we have a duty to think critically about the issues on which we vote. In our world of instant communication, where media are motivated by the bottom line rather than objectivity, and where political candidates are managed by experts with Machiavellian motivations, critical thinking is no easy task.

Critical thinking is the process of analyzing claims while maintaining intellectual humility and fair-mindedness. This can be done in three steps:

Step one

Make sure the claim is clear and unambiguous. One of the tricks of propagandists and political persuaders is to design a claim which cannot be pinned down. When this happens, critical thinkers must determine just what claim is being made. Exactly what is the candidate claiming? Without a specific claim, no critical analysis can be made.

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 9th, 2008 at 8:00 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

An Argument for Argument

One essential element of a democracy is that when people honestly disagree on how to deal with the political and social issues they face, they feel free to openly express their disagreement. In order to make a democracy work, people must be both willing and able to argue their views in a market place of ideas and allow citizens to sort the good ideas from the poor ones.

In our contemporary culture, however, the idea of argument has taken on negative connotations. We think of it as an unpleasant activity. We are admonished not to bring up the topics of politics or religion, because these subjects often produce unpleasantness. We believe that arguments are toxic and destructive of relationships. We view arguments in military terms, where one side is vanquished. Arguments are seen as damaging to the self-esteem of the “loser.” Losers of arguments may feel hurt and angry, because they perceive their loss as a personal humiliation.

Read the rest of this entry »

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 5th, 2008 at 3:00 pm and is filed under Editorial. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

April Meeting

April 12, 2008
3:00 pm	to	5:00 pm

Date: Saturday, April 12th 2008 (back on schedule)
Time: 3pm - 5pm
Location: Little Sheba’s

If possible, please RSVP by April 11th so that we can get a table large enough to sit altogether!

This entry was posted on Monday, March 24th, 2008 at 6:51 am and is filed under Events, Meetings, Top Nav. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

The other day I was browsing Kerasotes' website and I noticed that the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" was featured prominently in the "Coming Soon" section, receiving billing above even the next Chronicles of Narnia movie. This was hardly the first exposure to this movie that I have had. I've been following it's progress through other blogs and websites for a while now. But it suddenly made it a lot more real, and close to home. Would we really be getting Expelled shown here in Richmond? The synopsis of the movie is this: Intelligent Design is the position that everything we see around us in the natural world must have been the product, at some level, by an unidentified supernatural designer, and that traditional solely-naturalistic explanations are insufficient to explain the complexity we see around us. Those individuals who support Intelligent Design are constantly being suppressed by the proponents of "Darwinism" (Stein's word for "Evolution / Naturalistic worldview"). Darwinism is also "necessary, but not sufficient," in the words of David Berlinski, for the horrible atrocities of Hitler's Third Reich. But of course, this movie really isn't a documentary so much as a propaganda film. With recent reviews done by Michael Shermer & John Rennie of Scientific American, and a very fresh Copyright Infringement lawsuit pending, the contents of the movie are almost moot compared to the details surrounding it.

Fallacious premises

According to Michael Shermer (founder of Skeptic magazine and writer of several books), the basic premise of the movie that supporters of Intelligent Design are being silenced everywhere, is completely bogus. Shermer focuses on three main examples that the movie highlights as martyrs for the cause:

Stephen Meyer, whose article "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" was published in a Peer-Reviewed Journal by Richard Sternberg (Editor at the time)
Richard Sternberg, the editor mentioned, who was allegedly fired from the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History for approving Meyer's article
Guillermo Gonzalez, an Astronomer at Iowa State who was denied tenure allegedly because of his support for Intelligent Design.

But what really happened? Stephen Meyer is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the central nervous system of Intelligent Design advocacy. His article was published in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (June 2004 issue) and was solely reviewed by Sternberg, who approved it. It may be germane to note that Sternberg is hardly impartial in this matter: He is on the editorial board of Occasional Papers of the Baraminology Study Group, is a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, and is listed on the Discovery Institute's "100 Scientists that doubt Darwinism." So impartial discretion on a paper regarding biological origins, coupled with a unilateral decision under the radar, makes this whole situation look very dubious. Shermer also points out that as the paper is apparently more about Paleontology than Taxonomy (Sternberg's forte), it would have been more appropriate to have one of the other editors do the review, or at least run it by them in tandem. But instead, Sternberg elected to choose himself as the sole reviewer. Did he really get fired over this and have his "reputation smeared" as Stein claims? Shermer writes: "According to Jonathan Coddington, his supervisor at the NMNH, Sternberg was not discriminated against, was never dismissed, and in fact was not even a paid employee, but just an unpaid research associate who had completed his three-year term!" So in a nutshell, the movie lied deceptively about this. And what of Gonzalez, the tenuer-denied Astronomer? Was he really denied tenure due to his views / beliefs? Did his book Privileged Planet cause him to lose his inevitable tenure? Shermer writes:

"Although Gonzales was apparently a productive scientist before he moved to Iowa State, Scott says that "while there, his publication record tanked, he brought in only a couple of grants—one of which was from the [John] Templeton Foundation to write The Privileged Planet—didn't have very many graduate students, and those he had never completed their degrees. Lots of people don't get tenure, for the same legitimate reasons that Gonzalez didn't get tenure."

So again, another example of the producers / writers outright lying about what really happened. [All quotes and content in the section sourced from Shermer's original article]

Interview Trickery?

One of the common claims from the interviewees in this film, which include Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Michael Shermer, William Provine, and many others, is that they felt deceived with regards to what the movie was about. PZ Myers is the most notable case (simply because he's so vocal) and his story begins here. Keep these two things in mind: He was told the movie was entitled "Crossroads: the intersection of science and religion," and he received the letter in April. Mark Mathis, the producer, has since been giving his canned response that "Crossroads" was the working title, which is a common thing in filmmaking. This statement is technically true, and yet simultaneously deceptive. Let's make a hypothesis: If the filmmakers were indeed using "Crossroads" as a working title until they decided what the final title would be, then there shouldn't be anything to prove that they not only had thought of expelled as the title, but also committed to it as the title, right? Check the whois information for expelledmovie.com. Specifically this part:

Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC. Record last updated on 16-Feb-2008. Record expires on 02-Mar-2009. Record created on 02-Mar-2007.

Note the "Record created on" date. The domain "expelledthemovie.com" has identical registration dates. (As a control, "Crossroadsmovie.com" is registered by Viacom, in reference to the Britney Spears film, and "Crossroadsthemovie.com" is registered to someone else entirely.) This domain was registered on March 2nd of 2007. That's a full-month before PZ claims he received his letter from Mark Mathis. The line of questioning that Ben Stein had asked his interviewees, documented in Michael Shermer's comments on Richard Dawkins' review, further supports this hypothesis. The producers knew what the title was - they knew what they were shooting about, the producers outright lied to their interview subjects in order to deceive them into lowering their defenses and saying things that could easily be taken out of context.

Oh, the Irony!

On March 20th, PZ Myers, a Scienceblogger, outspoken critic of this movie, and also one of the featured interviewees in this film, attempted to see a pre-showing of this film at the Mall of America. He RSVP'd through their system, was informed that no ticket was necessary since the box office would have a list of names, and attended with his daughter, her boyfriend, and a couple friends. It's important to note that whether or not he was completely legitimate in RSVP'ing is up for debate, as he self-admittedly had not explicitly received an invitation, but RSVP'd through their system. So his registration was legitimate, even if the invitation was not. I would venture that if it were anyone else, they would likely not have cared, but I can't say that for certain. As he says on his recap of the account from the Apple store in the mall:

I was standing in line, hadn't even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn't going to cause any trouble. ... They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn't notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn't recognize him. My guest was: Richard Dawkins. He's in the theater right now, watching their movie.

The irony is, of course, that PZ was expelled from expelled (although given that the subtitle is "No Intelligence Allowed" I suppose it's more "fitting" than ironic), although Dawkins being allowed in at the expense of PZ is in an awfully close second place. In the week that followed this debacle, a windstorm of spinning, recapping, and back-and-forthing occurred. The Expelled crowd's statement was that PZ was attempting to infiltrate the movie, and that Dawkins had snuck in by registering with his surname, Clinton (I think they mean "middle name" though). However, PZ attests that he merely wrote "1 Guest" on his registration. I think that's pretty reasonable, although at this point it's just hearsay. The Expelled camp was trying to spin PZ as one of the "evil Darwinists hellbent on keeping you from seeing the truth!" Also - the blog "Matt's Notepad" has a rather lengthy writeup about this event and offers this bit:

Of course, the screenings themselves are rather questionable themselves. People going in have to sign non-disclosure agreements, show photo ID, not take in any bags or purses and so on. Rather odd all in all. The screenings are patrolled by off duty police officers using night vision goggles. How is this known? Well, people have gotten in and had a look at a screening and reported back on the whole affair. ‘Nomad’ made a lengthy review of the whole thing, Roger Moore of the Orlando Sentinel also saw it and gave it a damning review. And here’s another review of Expelled, just to make it a trio of them. This is actually very interesting since the films makers are, as seen, actively filtering who actually gets to see screenings and who doesn’t; making sure that positive crowds get the chance to see it. Again, extremely eyebrow raising considering the supposed point of the film being academic freedom.

Additionally, their latest strategy has been to screen the list of RSVP's, and send "cancellation notices" to undesirables, and then moving the actual film time back from 7pm to 6pm. They are quite obviously trying to actively control any possible dissent or negative reviews of the movie, which suggests, to me anyways, that they've got something to hide.

Copyright Infringement

In a quite recent development, a recent letter drafted to the company that produced the movie has claimed damages for copyright infringement. The letter itself is a bit lengthy, but you can read it at that link. The key portion is here:

... To our knowledge, this film includes a segment depicting biological cellular activity that was copied by computer-generated means from a video entitled "The Inner Life of a Cell." XVIVO holds the copyright to all the models, processes, and depictions in this video, and has not authorized Premise Media or Rampant Films to make any use of this material. We have obtained promotional material for the "Expelled" film, presented on a DVD, that clearly shows in the "cell segment" the virtually identical depiction of material from the "Inner Life" video. We particularly refer to the segment of the "Expelled" film purporting to show the "walking" models of kinesic activities in cellular mechanisms. The segments depicting these models in your film are clearly based upon, and copied from, material in the "Inner Life" video.

What's really strange about this is that it's not the first time the Intelligent Design community has illegally used this specific copyrighted video unauthorized. Abby Smith, also known as "ERV" by her blog, has chronicled the specific history of William Dembski's unauthorized use of the "Inner Life" video. Originally the video was produced by Harvard (the "XVIVO" folks) - Dembski used it with a different over-dubbed audio track. You can read more about it on her site (warning: she can be a bit vitriolic) and on Austringer's.

$Harvard\'s Version$

$Expelled\'s Version$

Top: Harvard's version Bottom: Expelled's version

At this time, the best they have been able to respond with is to simply reiterate the obvious, via Jonathan Wells:

Expelled does NOT use the Harvard animation. The producers paid a professional to create a new animation that is more accurate than the Harvard one (based on current knowledge of cellular processes). Any similarities between the Expelled animation and the Harvard one are due to the fact that both animations depict many of the same processes.

But what's interesting about this is something that PZ Myers had pointed out a while back: there's a unique phenomenon noticed in duplicates called "plagiarized errors". I'll let PZ tell it:

... the idea that the real tell-tale of a copy is when it's the mistakes that are duplicated, in addition to the accuracies. In this case, I previously criticized the Harvard video for a shortcut. That kinesin molecule is illustrated showing a stately march, step by step, straight down the microtubule. Observations of kinesin show it's more complex, jittering back and forth and advancing stochastically. That's a simplification in the Harvard video that is also present in Expelled's version.

Ok -- so it's not important that you understand the difference, or even know what a kinesin molecule is -- just that you understand that plagiarism can result in copied errors as well. It's sort of like if you were plagiarizing a paper for a school assignment, would you bother to fact check all the points it makes? Or just change it enough that it's not a word-for-word copy? Right. So here we have Jonathan Wells saying that the Expelled version "is more accurate than the Harvard one," and yet the video shows the same shortcut inaccuracy that the Harvard version does. Which is more plausible? (1) The producers of expelled changed just enough about the video that it's not a pixel-for-pixel copy? Or (2) The producers of expelled made an original video that looks nearly identical, and just so happened to make the same mistakes regarding kinesin's behavior? (And remember, this particular video has been used unauthorized in the past by Wm. Dembski!) UPDATE:

(April 15 2008) There is a very tongue-in-cheek comparison at DarwinCentral. It makes the similarities quite clear.
(April 17 2008) The "Inner Life" infringing clip has been removed from the movie.

What You Can Do

Well, for starters, pass the link to this article around. While it's true that all publicity may be good for the movie, as a good controversy is sure to fill seats -- if we can at least arm people with some foreknowledge of the background behind the movie, and the film maker's unethical (and allegedly illegal) behaviors, it should at least make people realize the Emperor has no clothes. I don't know if we'll be getting the movie here in Richmond or not, but I have written an email to the manager of our theater and she has forwarded my concerns on to the booking manager. So we'll see, I suppose. The best weapon we have is to educate people about the between-the-lines details of this movie. They may still choose to see it, but hopefully they will see through deception. What do you think?

UPDATE : Further reading

Salt Lake Tribune: Movies: Hiding 'Expelled' from critics a not-so-intelligent move
Huffington Post: Ben Stein: Front Man for Creationism's Manufactroversy
Expelled Exposed: Expelled

[post_title] => Expelled: no reasoning or integrity allowed [post_category] => 0 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => expelled-no-reasoning-or-integrity-allowed [to_ping] => [pinged] => http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/sternberg http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/gonzalez http://blog.darwincentral.org/2008/04/15/find-ben-steins-father/ [post_modified] => 2008-04-18 05:36:25 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-04-18 13:36:25 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.richmond-freethinkers.org/?p=108 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [ec3_schedule] => Array ( ) [ancestors] => Array ( ) ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 107 [post_author] => 10 [post_date] => 2008-04-09 08:00:38 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-04-09 16:00:38 [post_content] => We Americans are blessed in that we are participants in the greatest experiment in democratic living ever to exist on planet earth. Citizenship in this marvelous venture comes with a cost. That cost is that we are periodically obligated to take part in our democracy by voting. Beyond simply voting, however, we have a duty to think critically about the issues on which we vote. In our world of instant communication, where media are motivated by the bottom line rather than objectivity, and where political candidates are managed by experts with Machiavellian motivations, critical thinking is no easy task. Critical thinking is the process of analyzing claims while maintaining intellectual humility and fair-mindedness. This can be done in three steps:

Step one

Step two

Examine the evidence offered in support of the claim. In political communication, many claims are made without evidence to support them. When this happens critical thinkers assign the claim to the unproven opinion category. Critical thinkers don't say such claims are false, simply unproven. Evidence in support of a claim might be facts, authoritative and unbiased testimony, and sometimes an analogy. Facts are the key to critical thinking. Ronald Reagan famously said, "Facts are stubborn things." Indeed they are. Facts should never be in doubt for critical thinkers. To be considered facts, they must have been observed directly or have been reported by an unbiased and knowledgeable source. The predominant problem with all political communication is that it almost always makes a radically biased selection of the facts reported. Political communicators present only the facts that support their claims. For every controversial issue there are facts supporting all sides of the issue. If this were not true, there would be no controversy. Critical thinkers aggressively insist on all the facts before attempting an analysis.

Step Three

Consider the relationship of the evidence to the candidate's claim. Often candidates make a claim, then offer evidence that only supports that claim in a most superficial or indirect manner. Critical thinkers answer the question, "How directly does the evidence offered support the claim made?" Critical thinkers know that no argument can prove a controversial claim beyond all doubt. What is the best policy to combat terrorism? What shall we do about illegal immigration? What is the best plan to deal with Iraq? Even the best critical thinkers cannot answer these questions with certainty. Critical thinking can only help us find the answer that has the best chance of success. Nevertheless, as citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to make the decision. In this election there is a choice. If we don't make it, someone else will. I plan to have my voice heard. How about you? [post_title] => Critical Thinking in a Democracy [post_category] => 0 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => critical-thinking-in-a-democracy [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2008-04-05 15:15:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-04-05 23:15:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.richmond-freethinkers.org/?p=107 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [ec3_schedule] => Array ( ) [ancestors] => Array ( ) ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 106 [post_author] => 10 [post_date] => 2008-04-05 15:00:41 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-04-05 23:00:41 [post_content] => One essential element of a democracy is that when people honestly disagree on how to deal with the political and social issues they face, they feel free to openly express their disagreement. In order to make a democracy work, people must be both willing and able to argue their views in a market place of ideas and allow citizens to sort the good ideas from the poor ones. In our contemporary culture, however, the idea of argument has taken on negative connotations. We think of it as an unpleasant activity. We are admonished not to bring up the topics of politics or religion, because these subjects often produce unpleasantness. We believe that arguments are toxic and destructive of relationships. We view arguments in military terms, where one side is vanquished. Arguments are seen as damaging to the self-esteem of the "loser." Losers of arguments may feel hurt and angry, because they perceive their loss as a personal humiliation. Assumptions like these are misguided, because they distort what argument should be and how it has been historically used. Correctly employed, an argument is an act of effective thinking. It is the activity of reason giving. A person engaged in argument makes a statement, then offers reasons why that statement should be believed. From the time of Plato, arguments have been used to move the discussion of a problem toward a resolution. Argument, then, is a process for solving problems. When employed this way, arguments do not produce winners or losers. If a workable solution to a problem is found, everyone wins, regardless of which party first offered the solution. As French moralist, Joseph Joubert, wrote, "the aim of an argument should be not victory but progress." If we are unwilling to engage in argument, how would the important differences we face every day be resolved? The alternative to argument is to resolve such problems by resorting to the use of political or physical force. For me, argument is a far superior way to answer to difficult questions. An argument is an inherently democratic activity. In a democracy, citizens are charged not only with electing the people who will serve as their leaders, but also with expressing a choice as to what they want those leaders to do in certain situations. Without effective argument to fully explore alternative plans, citizens cannot make intelligent choices.

What Makes a Dispute an Argument?

An argument does not take place in a vacuum. Although people sometimes argue with themselves, arguments usually have an audience. That audience may be parties present and involved in the interaction or it may be parties not present and not engaged in the interaction. A wife arguing with her husband about whether or not to purchase a new automobile has an audience of one. A senator making a speech before the Senate has an audience of the members present and those constituents who might read a record of the speech. The point here is that if an argument is to be successful, it must make an appeal that members of the target audience will find relevant to their interests and needs. Nevertheless, even the most open and fully effective argument cannot absolutely guarantee that the solution it reaches will actually solve the problem it seeks to solve. Arguments attempt to find solutions to problems for which an absolutely certain answer is unknowable. Any solution to a complex problem will leave some aspects in doubt. What is the best plan for dealing with the social security short fall? How can we provide adequate medical care for all Americans? What should America do to help mitigate the problems in the Middle East? How shall we deal with undocumented immigrants? There are alternative solutions for all of these questions, but we cannot know before hand, which, if any, of them provides the best solution. If you expect a perfect answer that leaves nothing in doubt, you will never be able to deal with such complex issues. We cannot know the future, so we cannot be absolutely certain of the best course of action. That's where argument comes in. An open and free wheeling argument that explores and debates all the alternatives can produce not a guaranteed solution but a solution that has the best chance of success. Arguments take place over important issues. We don't argue very long, if at all, over trivial matters. We argue about questions which are important in our lives, and for which, in the face of uncertainty, some course of action is necessary. People who enter into an argument accept the risk that they might be shown to be wrong. If you enter into a discussion saying, "I know I'm right and nothing you can say will change my mind," you are engaged in persuasion, not argument. People enter into an argument because they want to test their solutions to a problem against the alternatives, to learn which of them might be best.

The Elements of an Argument

British philosopher Steven Toulmin says that at its most basic level, an effective argument will have three elements, (a) a claim which states the arguer's position, (b) evidence or reasons why the claim should be accepted, and (c) a warrant, which is a clear connection between the evidence and the claim.

The Claim

In order to make an effective argument, Toulmin says, arguers must state the conclusion or point of their argument in clear and unambiguous terms. The claim answers the question, "What does the arguer want to prove?" Some claims are factual claims: "The earth is experiencing a period of global warming." Some claims are value claims. These claims argue that something is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, and/or is beautiful or ugly: "Global warming presents a clear danger to the people of the world, because it will radically change our weather patterns." Other claims may be claims of policy. These claims suggest a course of action: "We must take immediate steps to reduce carbon emissions in order to stop the warming trend."

The Evidence or Reasons

Claims, according to Toulmin, require justification. In other words, they require evidence to support them. Evidence might be in the form of observational data or the testimony of unbiased and knowledgeable authorities. A complete discussion of types and quality of evidence is beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless arguers are obligated to present evidence in support of the claims they make. In some arguments the evidence itself is controversial and can become an argument. When this occurs the arguer is ethically bound to provide support for the evidence she or he has cited. For example, I might cite the testimony of a person I claim to be an expert in support of a claim I have made. My opponent has every right to challenge the expertise of the person I have cited and I am ethically obligated to respond to that challenge. The most important thing about evidence or justification is that all of it be presented. In most social and political arguments, proponents of a point of view attempt to present only the evidence that supports their claim, while omitting evidence or reasons that contradict their claim. For every controversial claim, there are some reasons to support it and reasons to reject it. A good argument presents the reasons to support its claim and attempts to explain away the reasons to reject it. However, an ethical argument does not omit the negative evidence in the hope it will not be brought out.

The Warrant

The warrant, Toulmin tells us, is an inference or an assumption on which the arguer's reasoning or evidence is based. Of course, some assumptions underlie all arguments. The warrant makes a statement about the relationship between the argument's claim and its evidence. Warrants are not always directly stated. If the arguer believes that the underlying assumptions are shared by listeners, the arguer may not state them directly. However, if the listeners do not share the arguer's assumptions, they must be stated clearly and directly if the argument is to be accepted. When an arguer cites research as evidence in support of a claim, the method, objectivity and applicability of that research might be called into question. Whenever such questions are raised, the arguer is obligated to provide a warrant in support of the evidence cited. "You should accept my evidence because..."

Fallacies in Arguments

A complete list of fallacies that are common in arguments would require a book. Indeed, numerous books have been written on this subject. However, we can briefly examine some of the more common fallacies which you will hear in today's political discourse.

Ad Hominem

Perhaps the most common fallacy we hear in political argument is the one logicians call ad hominem. It means an attack on person or on the motives of the person making an argument. This type of attack does not speak to the claim, evidence or warrant of the argument, but challenges the veracity, objectivity, behavior, or patriotism of the person making the argument. Today there is hardly a political campaign in which personal attacks do not appear. The so-called "swift boat" issue, which attacked Senator Kerry's patriotism during the 2004 presidential campaign is one example, and the attack on President Bush's national-guard service is another. Neither of these attacks was relevant to the candidates' qualifications for the office they sought nor did they speak to how those candidates might respond to current issues. Of course, if the issue of the argument is an individual's expertise as a source or qualifications to serve in an office, then a challenge to that individual's training and professional experience is legitimate.

Hasty Generalization

Another common fallacy is a hasty or unwarranted generalization. An arguer presenting examples or data as evidence in support of a claim is ethically obligated to present examples which are representative of the claimed outcome, along with a sufficient quantity of examples. One current political advertisement argues that a certain congressional candidate is unpatriotic because, as congressman, that candidate voted against a constitutional amendment banning the desecration of the American flag. Regardless of one's view of flag desecration, one example is hardly enough to draw a conclusion about an individual's entire worldview.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam

A third common fallacy occurs when one party attempts to unreasonably exploit the fears of listeners. Among political commercials, the seminal example of this fallacy was seen in the 1964 presidential campaign, when Democrats sponsored perhaps the most famous political television commercial of all time, the so called "Daisy Girl" advertisement. The ad depicted a child picking the petals from a daisy, which then morphed into a nuclear explosion and mushroom cloud. It ended with the voice of Lyndon Johnson saying: "These are the stakes: to make a world in which all God's children can live or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other or we must die." The point of the ad was to exploit voters' fears of candidate Goldwater's perceived inclination toward using nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union. Forty-two years later Republicans are getting their revenge. There is an advertisement running in the current election using almost the same words, exploiting the Democrats' perceived unwillingness to defend the nation against terrorism.

The Ethics of Argument

Here are some guidelines for participants in an ethical argument:

Individuals in an argument agree on a give and take process and that everyone will be allowed an uninterrupted opportunity to speak.
People in an argument agree that there is some evidence which, if established, will resolve the issue.
All claims counter-claims and challenges focus on the issue at hand and not on the motives or personal behavior of the parties engaged in the argument. (See "Ad Hominem" above)
Any statement made in an argument is fair game for challenge. If a statement is challenged, the individual making the statement is ethically obligated to respond to the challenge. If the challenge is adequately defended, the person making the challenge is obligated to concede the point. If the challenge cannot be adequately defended, the person originally making the statement is obligated to concede the point.
In today's scandal oriented social and political milieu, there are very few arguments in which these guidelines are followed.

There has always been political bickering. Personal attacks and scandals have been a part of our politics since the days of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamiltion. However, since the middle of the 20^th century, there has been an explosion of the invective of personal destruction, which now seems to be the standard for political communication. Political campaigners today do not seem satisfied with merely winning a campaign, they seem to want the total devastation of their opponents. Such vitriolic attacks divert our efforts to find real solutions to problems and eat away at the underpinnings of our democratic system. Conversely, if we allow discussion and argument to become the norm, rather than the exception, it may make our democratic system more workable and might allow us to find constructive solutions to problems that for years have seemed intractable. [post_title] => An Argument for Argument [post_category] => 0 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => an-argument-for-argument [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2008-04-05 15:01:10 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-04-05 23:01:10 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.richmond-freethinkers.org/?p=106 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [ec3_schedule] => Array ( ) [ancestors] => Array ( ) ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 103 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2008-03-24 06:51:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2008-03-24 14:51:28 [post_content] =>

Date: Saturday, April 12th 2008 (back on schedule)
Time: 3pm - 5pm
Location: Little Sheba's

If possible, please RSVP by April 11th so that we can get a table large enough to sit altogether! [post_title] => April Meeting [post_category] => 0 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => open [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => next-meeting-3 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2008-03-31 13:12:23 [post_modified_gmt] => 2008-03-31 21:12:23 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://www.richmond-freethinkers.org/2008/03/24/next-meeting-3.html [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [ec3_schedule] => Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [post_id] => 103 [start] => 2008-04-12 15:00:00 [end] => 2008-04-12 17:00:00 [allday] => 0 [rpt] => [active] => 0 ) ) [ancestors] => Array ( ) ) ) )

June Meeting

May Meeting

Expelled: no reasoning or integrity allowed

Critical Thinking in a Democracy

Step one

An Argument for Argument

April Meeting

Fallacious premises

Interview Trickery?

Oh, the Irony!

Copyright Infringement

What You Can Do

UPDATE : Further reading

Step one

Step two

Step Three

What Makes a Dispute an Argument?

The Elements of an Argument

The Claim

The Evidence or Reasons

The Warrant

Fallacies in Arguments

Ad Hominem

Hasty Generalization

Argumentum ad Consequentiam

The Ethics of Argument