Teach me how to think, please!
I have found something useful for philosophers to do!
Surprising news indeed, but take a look at this paragraph from Helen Salmon, student representative for the Stop the War Coalition.
This is not a war for the liberation of the people of Iraq. The US and Britain were happy to back Saddam’s tyrannical regime, his gassing of the Kurds and his war against Iran until he invaded Kuwait. Nor is this a war against weapons of mass destruction. No evidence of such weapons has been found in Iraq, and no war has been threatened against North Korea, despite its possession of nuclear weapons.
Never in the field of writing about human confict, have so many bad argumentative moves been made in so short a paragraph. Let’s count!
1. The fact that the US and Britain were willing to back Saddam has no necessary bearing on whether their combined action in Iraq is a war for the liberation of the people of Iraq (they may simply have realised the error of their ways, for example).
2. War against weapons of mass destruction. Oh dear. The problem here is that Ms Salmon’s logic compels her to the conclusion that whether there is such a thing depends on how good people are at hiding these weapons. Bad regimes, good at hiding – no war against weapons of mass destruction. Bad regimes, bad at hiding – the war’s on!
3. Terrible logic in the next bit about North Korea. Indeed, it’s Stangroomesque in its awfulness! No more to be said, really.*
So philosophers, the challenge for you, should you choose to accept it, is to teach this person to think. Scary, eh?!
*Yes, I know – that’s no kind of argument!
Well but then again, does the logic of your argument (in point #2) compel you to the conclusion that one should attack countries accused of harbouring weapons of mass destruction on the basis of…nothing? Is evidence entirely irrelevant? Where does the logic of that end? If cousin Egbert has a dream that Halifax, Nova Scotia has weapons of mass destruction, should the US attack? If Joe Thug is accused of murder but there is no evidence, that is usually considered a drawback when it comes to prosecution. Sometimes prosecutors don’t even bring a case to trial if there’s no evidence, because they know it’s futile. So isn’t it a bit too glib to just throw that objection out? We all know the old saw that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, but then again it’s not evidence of presence either.
Well clearly you’ve got have have good grounds (i.e., rationally justified grounds) for thinking that a country has weapons of mass destruction, but evidence is only part of the story.
So, in the case of Iraq: we know they had WsMD – or the means to make them – in 1998; we know Saddam has used them in the past; there is no evidence that he destroyed what he had in 1998 (indeed, even today Hans Blix has said that at this late stage the Iraqis have been no more forthcoming than previously about what happened to the stuff that was around five years ago); we know they had time to hide the WMDs; we know that experts have said all along that we wouldn’t find anything even if they were there; and it is virtually inconceivable – though not logically so – that he destroyed them of his own volition between 1998 and 2003.
That’s enough to render the simple: “No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, therefore, no war against them” a non-starter.
To work the argument needs to be something like: we have no good grounds for supposing that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, therefore, it is not justified to embark on a war against his country on that basis. That’d work, but it’s a different argument.
Also, I’ve got to say that there is no logic to my position in point 2. I was merely pointing out the logic of Ms Salmon’s position. After all, it’s a logical possibility that I think it a jolly good idea that we adopt ability to hide WsMD as the criterion against which we judge the rightness of military action!
Oh, okay. I was thinking all of that: what we knew in the past, had reason to believe, etc., was evidence. Failed to distinguish between grounds and evidence, I guess.
Oh no logic! Well that’s all right then.
Well, part of the problem with Ms Salmon’s rather poor effort is precisely that she needs to spell out these subtle distinctions.
The difficulty is that some people do think that the fact that the weapons inspectors have found nothing necessarily means that we have no good grounds for thinking that something might be there. As you know, that is just bad reasoning.
Yes, I do indeed know. I’ve heard people make that very mistake. A show on public radio here, for instance, had on two reporters for Jane’s Defense Weekly who said very carefully that there was no evidence of weapons in Iraq, and the host of the show replied (very strangely) “So you’re certain that Iraq has no weapons then?” I nearly threw something at the radio. But one hears that leap all too often.
I want to teach people to think more effectively. People will come to me willingly and will understand my method to be specifically: — to identify three important errors in critical thinking made commonly by modern human beings on this planet, — to give an intriguing example of each error type, and — to provide a few essential tools/methods by which they may begin to avoid these errors in the construction of their own thinking.
People who come to me will not be pre-screened in any way and may vary widely in qualities of intelligence, attention span, and educational background. Each will be at least eighteen years of age.
The only other qualifications I will make for accepting each as a participant in this exercise will be — that each will claim to sense a deficiency in the quality of arguments being presented for their consideration (both by their own mind and from external sources) and — that each speaks and thinks in English at no worse than a “second nature” level and — that each professes a sincere desire to improve their ability to think critically.
I will pledge to speak at the level and style that I judge most appropriate to achieving these ends while we are engaged. We will meet three times for two hours each meeting.
I am not a philosopher. Nor a teacher. Nor a genius-level intellect. I judge my intentions to be sincere. Help me.
–Jim
Hmmm. Perhaps “Help me” has given you the mistaken impression that I am someone in *need* of “help” (chemical, electrical, or canvas, for instance.)
The question I should have posed is:
How would you judge my chances for success in this hypothetical venture?
I live in a medium-large city near Los Angeles, California.
Cheers
Sorry, I’m not really sure we can judge how likely you are to be successful. We’d need to know more about you and also where you live…