[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."

[Joe Campbell]

This is where logic comes in. Logic is the study of correct inference,  
what gets you from "the facts" to the conclusion. The argument in the  
example has a weak, invalid inference.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 31, 2009, at 6:59 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Just  a note on facts. The facts may be correct but the conclusion  
> may be wrong. When I was in Graduate School Dr. Christian told a  
> story of what he called graduate student thinking. professor Bumgard  
> was in a home for the insane. He decided to do research on fleas  
> responds to voce command. He tore of a leg and gave a command to  
> jump. Each time he tore off a leg the flea did not jump as high.  
> When the flea had no legs it did not jump. He concluded that fleas  
> with no legs could not hear. All of the facts were correct but the  
> conclusion was wrong.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Ted Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:34:16 -0700
> To: Moscow Vision 2020 vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with  
> facts."
>
>> Just the "facts"... whatever a "fact" is... There is often  
>> disagreement on
>> this basic issue, of course, from philosophers, theologians,  
>> politicians,
>> economists... It seems scientists have a better handle on the  
>> nature of
>> facts... Unlike apologists for religious superstition and  
>> irrationality who
>> suggest theology is equal or superior to science as a method for  
>> attaining
>> knowledge of the external world.
>>
>> Amazing how disagreement among scientists is declared a reason to  
>> question
>> their legitimacy and credibility, according to some religious
>> fundamentalists, yet the blatant disagreement among theologians  
>> about the
>> nature of God, and interpreting revelation of absolute truth in  
>> religious
>> texts, is discounted as a reason for caution in espousing religious
>> dogmatism
>>
>> But is it morally justifiable or attainable or even desirable to  
>> undermine
>> humanity's illusions?  Humanity needs illusions, don't you think?   
>> Cultures
>> need scapegoats to blame their problems on, just as they need myths  
>> to deal
>> with the grief and finality of death, to explain the mysteries of the
>> natural world, and to scare people into obeying moral laws (hell).
>>
>> Illusions cushion hard realities of life that cause psychological
>> suffering.  Some of humanity's illusions might be viewed as  
>> intellectual or
>> ideological anti-depressants.  Also, take away scapegoats and myths  
>> and
>> people can't be controlled as easily by leaders using fear and  
>> blame.  Can't
>> have that, now can we?  Do we want society to degenerate into  
>> anarchy?
>>
>> Scapegoats abound, depending on your point of view: Communists,  
>> Jihadists,
>> homosexuals, socialists, feminists, humanist atheists, right-wing  
>> religious
>> extremists, left-wing academics, colonial capitalists, eco- 
>> extremists,
>> Hispanics or African-Americans, evil drug users and foreign drug  
>> cartels et.
>> al., even Canadians and their nationalized health care, which is  
>> now being
>> exploited in the media as an example of the disaster that will  
>> happen with
>> Obama's health care reform.
>>
>> Orwell was correct.  Endless wars (war on drugs, for example) and
>> scapegoats are useful for social control.
>>
>> Mainstream drug addicts using tobacco and alcohol and medically
>> "sanctioned" pharmaceuticals (Rush Limbaugh, and his hired help on  
>> the
>> streets for contraband Oxycontin), can blame those evil cocaine,  
>> cannabis,
>> heroin and meth users et. al. for crime and moral decay.  Colombian  
>> cocaine
>> drug cartels, Mexican cannabis and meth, and Afghanistan poppy is  
>> foreign
>> evil, spreading drug addiction and terrorism.
>>
>> So what if alcohol is associated with more violent crime (domestic  
>> violence,
>> rape, battery, etc.) than any other drug, and domestic tobacco  
>> causes the
>> premature death of hundreds of thousands annually?  Forget these  
>> facts!  The
>> US tobacco cartels and Jack Daniels are red, white and blue!  And  
>> Joe Camel
>> was a cartoon for our entertainment, not an appalling ad campaign  
>> to sell
>> the addictive drug tobacco to children.
>>
>> Law enforcement needs to focus on serious crime, not trying to  
>> lower the
>> death rate from the number one cause of premature death, tobacco  
>> addiction!
>> Illusions, indeed!  Serious crime? Billions spent in Columbia on  
>> the cocaine
>> drug war, while US tobacco cartels deal their drug in every US  
>> city.  Facts?
>>
>> So what if bar workers allegedly end up with heart disease or lung  
>> cancer
>> from exposure to tobacco on the job; there could be numerous causes  
>> for
>> this.
>>
>> There are tobacco scientists that claim that tobacco is not that  
>> bad.  As
>> long as you can find one scientist that questions something, we  
>> just can't
>> know for sure, like that politicized propaganda about humans altering
>> climate... Scientific consensus?  Just politics and conformism.   
>> Divine
>> revelation is absolute.  Just ask the tens of millions in the US  
>> who believe
>> the Bible is literal certain truth.  The Earth is a few thousand  
>> years old,
>> evolution is false, gays are evil, and so forth... Harmless beliefs  
>> that
>> deny facts?  Or?
>>
>> And if tobacco does make bar workers sick, they made this choice of  
>> their
>> own "free will," whatever that is (no one can figure this out...),  
>> given
>> genetics and cultural conditioning, exposure to tobacco in childhood,
>> and other deterministic factors in life... Anyway, early death  
>> lowers the
>> burden on social security, so there are societal benefits to dying  
>> young.
>> Tobacco is a social security cost saving plan.
>>
>> Of course, trying to enforce smoking restrictions is a waste of  
>> time and
>> money, they are unenforceable, like laws against murder (do I need  
>> to spell
>> it out?) and stealing (Madoff), or the principles of the Geneva  
>> Conventions,
>> against torture (US torture campaign during the Bush  
>> administration).  Look
>> at what a failure they are!
>>
>> Besides, having to go outside in inclement weather to patronize a  
>> bar is
>> surely unreasonable, as is asking smokers to step outside!  Last  
>> winter on a
>> cold wet day, given the lack of convenient parking in downtown Moscow
>> (the suffering bar goers must endure!), I had to actually walk (can  
>> you
>> believe it?) several blocks in the cold and wet just to get to John's
>> Alley!  It must have been at least five minutes of exposure to the  
>> harsh
>> winter elements.  How can they expect to attract customers in these
>> conditions?
>>
>> I protested to the Idaho Human Rights commission (just joking...).   
>> They
>> insisted they would consider a court case regarding discrimination  
>> against
>> bar patrons (are they not a protected minority?), and the human
>> rights abuses in forcing tobacco smokers into harsh outdoor weather  
>> to
>> manage their addiction, when they should have safe and comfortable
>> accommodations to administer their drug.
>>
>> Outdoor covered areas with those nifty infrared heaters might be a
>> solution, mandated by law to be within 20 feet of all bar entrances  
>> to keep
>> smokers warm and dry.  And buses to take bar goers from home to the  
>> bar and
>> back, with front door service on both ends, like children bused to  
>> school,
>> could be mandated by law, for a modest fee.  Drunk driving  
>> reduced!  Isn't
>> one life saved worth the cost?
>>
>> Seriously though, bar owners/operators will likely act as the primary
>> enforcers of the smoking ordinance.  If a patron is smoking, they  
>> can ask
>> the patron to leave.  Bars can 86 anyone they want, its private  
>> property,
>> and if they don't comply, they are trespassing, correct?  From my
>> observations, bar operators often ask patrons causing problems to  
>> leave
>> before calling the police, except in special cases.  That's why  
>> bars have
>> bouncers... I've generally thought it best not to argue with a  
>> bouncer.
>>
>> Consider the significant number of people who, if they thought they  
>> could
>> get away with it, would light up a joint in the bars?  Why don't  
>> they?  If
>> there is no practical way to enforce a smoking ban, what stops  
>> cannabis
>> smoking in bars?  Or on the sidewalks in downtown Moscow?
>>
>> Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 7/27/09, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Very interesting stuff, Ted. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 26, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While I think government regulation of addictive drug use in the
>>> workplace (tobacco in bars, in this case) that has dramatic  
>>> negative health
>>> impacts, when employees sometimes breathe the drugs continuously  
>>> during
>>> their shift, is reasonable, I have doubts about restricting  
>>> outdoor tobacco
>>> use.  For one thing, this is not occurring in the workplace  
>>> (unless the bar
>>> happens to be outdoors), and outdoor use of tobacco does not  
>>> concentrate the
>>> smoke as use indoors.
>>>
>>> But the twenty foot ban on smoking outside entrances to bars in  
>>> Moscow does
>>> not make it hard to find a spot to smoke outside some bars.   
>>> Consider John's
>>> Alley.  Along the sidewalk in front of the Alley to the east is  
>>> the south
>>> wall of the Moscow Food CO-OP.  There are no entrances along this  
>>> wall.
>>> Twenty feet to the east from the south entrance to John's Alley is  
>>> within a
>>> quick few steps of a "legal smoke zone."
>>>
>>> Anyway, drugs, sex, politics, economics and religion are main  
>>> subjects
>>> (what else?) that it seems are difficult sometimes to approach  
>>> rationally
>>> and factually...
>>>
>>> What drugs are determined to be "hard" or "soft" is often not  
>>> based on
>>> objective medical knowledge, and the legal status of illegal/legal  
>>> drugs is
>>> sometimes not based on the rational application of medical science  
>>> and
>>> sociology.  Isn't cannabis criminalization an example?
>>>
>>> Alcohol in quantities easy to consume induces dramatic impairment  
>>> of mind
>>> and body (and can kill, as the sad case of the U of I student who  
>>> overdosed
>>> on alcohol last spring reveals:
>>> http://www.kxly.com/Global/story.asp?S=10258470  ), that use of
>>> methamphetamine or cocaine, for contrast, will not, though long  
>>> term abuse
>>> of these drugs will impair function and injection makes overdosing a
>>> risk.  Who injects alcohol?  Is this possible?  However, alcohol  
>>> is the
>>> number one drug associated with violent crime.
>>>
>>> One of the signs of cocaine or methamphetamine use/abuse is  
>>> increased
>>> efficiency on the job, which is not associated with alcohol use.   
>>> And the
>>> rates of vehicle accidents from cocaine or methamphetamine use is  
>>> not very
>>> high, unlike alcohol, which being a depressant reduces reaction  
>>> time and
>>> coordination.  Soldiers use methamphetamine for critical times in  
>>> battle, to
>>> increase their performance or stay awake.  Alcohol can also be  
>>> physically
>>> addictive, and damaging to health (liver).  It could therefore be  
>>> classified
>>> as a "hard" drug, as cocaine and methamphetamine sometimes are.
>>>
>>> Though tobacco use usually does not induce the radical impairments  
>>> of
>>> mental and physical function that alcohol does immediately after a  
>>> few
>>> drinks, it (nicotine) can induce profound physical addiction; and  
>>> the long
>>> term health damage is severe, which is why, combined with tobacco's
>>> widespread availability and use, tobacco is the leading cause of  
>>> premature
>>> death.  Nicotine can also easily kill due to an overdose, if  
>>> injected into
>>> the blood stream, but tobacco smoking makes this outcome nearly  
>>> impossible,
>>> from what I have read.
>>>
>>> Tobacco is insidious because a user can become addicted for years,  
>>> with
>>> minimal impairment of function (unless having high standards for
>>> performance, as an athlete would) before the most serious health  
>>> impacts
>>> manifest (cancer and respiratory diseases, etc.).  People often  
>>> seem to
>>> tolerate "smokers cough," and the smell.  Alcohol's impairment of
>>> functioning soon after a significant dose is a discouragement to  
>>> abuse,
>>> as some U of I freshmen every year, apparently lacking in  
>>> experience,
>>> discover after a night at the bars, leaving their dinner on the  
>>> sidewalk, a
>>> rite of passage for youth, some might claim...
>>>
>>> If physical addiction and either radical impairment of functioning  
>>> or very
>>> serious negative health impacts on large numbers of people defines  
>>> a "hard"
>>> drug, tobacco would be the number one candidate, among drugs  
>>> commonly used,
>>> with alcohol second.
>>>
>>> Heroin is highly addictive, but does not cause the extent of health
>>> problems tobacco does, or at least not directly from only the  
>>> effects of the
>>> drug; and I don't mean because heroin is used much less than  
>>> tobacco.  This
>>> statement will raise eyebrows, but this is because people have not  
>>> studied
>>> the objective medical science, and are conditioned by socially  
>>> constructed
>>> myths about drugs and their effects.  Of course overdosing on  
>>> heroin is
>>> fatal, but the negative health impacts of heroin use are often due  
>>> to
>>> impurities in the drug, needles used incorrectly, and the life  
>>> style of
>>> addiction.  This is one argument for decriminalzing heroin (with  
>>> regulation,
>>> of course), given criminalization encourages many of the behaviors  
>>> that are
>>> damaging from heroin addiction.  Doctors who have had access to  
>>> high quality
>>> heroin, who know how to administer it, and avoid overdosing, and are
>>> financially secure, have been heroin addicts for years, reliably  
>>> carrying on
>>> their medical practice with their addiction in secret. Below read  
>>> an animal
>>> study comparing cocaine to heroin; the effects of cocaine were  
>>> clearly more
>>> damaging than heroin:
>>>
>>> http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport06.htm
>>> --------
>>>
>>> It is rather amazing that five Nobel Prize winning US authors were
>>> alcoholics, with some of them claiming alcohol had a "stimulating"  
>>> effect on
>>> their writing skills.  Info on this issue is from this excellent and
>>> fascinating book, a great read:
>>>
>>> http://www.slushpile.net/index.php/2005/09/06/bod-the-thirsty-muse/
>>>
>>> Today’s Book-of-the-Day is *The Thirsty Muse: Alcohol and the Am 
>>> erican
>>> Writer* by Tom Dardis. The book examines the influence of alcohol  
>>> on so
>>> many American authors. And the list is incredibly long. Five of  
>>> the seven
>>> (at the time of publication) American Nobel laureates–Sinclair L 
>>> ewis, Eugene
>>> O’Neill, William Faulkner, Ernest Hemingway, and John Steinbeck– 
>>> were
>>> alcoholic. Similarly afflicted writers include Jack London, Edna  
>>> St. Vincent
>>> Millay, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Hart Crane, Thomas Wolfe, Dashiell  
>>> Hammett,
>>> Dorothy Parker, Ring Larnder, Djuna Barnes, John O’Hara, Tenness 
>>> ee Williams,
>>> Carson McCullers, James Jones, John Cheever, Truman Capote,  
>>> Raymond Carver,
>>> Robert Lowell, and James Agee.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com><Vision2020 at moscow.com 
>>> >
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================