The author calls this “a
troubleshooting guide” similar to the owner’s manual of a car or computer. “It
is aimed at everyday users and consumers of reasoning…” It certainly meets that
measure. The main thrust is on failures of right reason such as inconsistency,
equivocation, and begging the question. The author also reveals false claims,
principally phony statistics.
Before moving into
financial consulting and electioneering for the open market in his homeland of New Zealand, Jamie
Whyte completed master’s and doctor’s degrees in philosophy at Cambridge University (Wikipedia here). You can find some of his essays
archived at the Cobden Centre here. The Centre is named for the
successful manufacturer and proponent of laissez-faire in early 19
th
century Britain,
Richard Cobden. His writings are archived at the Online
Library of Liberty
here.
In formal terms, Jamie Whyte
is an objectivist, a strict rational-empiricist whose logically consistent
statements explain experiential facts. This book is his attack on some of the
people who fail to meet either standard.
|
Crimes Against Logic: Exposing the Bogus Arguments of Politicians, Priests, Journalists, and Other Serial Offenders by Jamie Whyte. (McGraw-Hill 2004, 157 pages.) Google Books has an extract of the first chapter on why you do not have a right to your opinion, here. |
The first crime that Whyte
investigates is the claim that you have a right to your opinion. No such right
exists. Whyte points out that this assertion is founded on an ambiguity. You do
have a political right to an opinion.
However, that is not to be confused with the epistemic right to an opinion. The epistemic right to an opinion,
says Whyte, is similar to the right to boast. Just as you first must achieve
something worthy of boasting, so, too, is the “right” to an opinion earned by
correctly identifying facts and then explaining them rationally. When someone
retreats by claiming that they have a “right” their opinion, they are actually
admitting that they are wrong, or at the very least, they can present no
reasons and facts to support their assertions.
In the chapter “Prejudice
in Fancy Dress” Whyte demolishes Pascal’s Wager and several other examples including
Faith and Mystery. The subhead “But Still” examines calls for the acceptance of
ignorance. This is actually a variant of the non-existent right to an opinion. Yes,
the facts are on your side. Yes, your argument is logical. But still I prefer
my prejudices.
The chapter “Shut Up!”
scrutinizes several ways that those losing an argument seek to cut off debate
by silencing their opponent. Well-known facts are boring. That a claim can be
countered with a boring fact in no way mitigates the strength of the contrary
assertion. That a boring fact has been marshaled is especially strong, as it
points to a clear violation by the party demanding that the other shut up.
Under
the subhead “Shut Up, You Sound Like Hitler” Whyte calls mass murder “something
of a lottery.” He tells of being
in a Lenin Bar in Auckland, “decorated with red stars and black and white
images of the great Communist leader.”
Hitler bars, he notes, seem to be in short supply.
In the chapter on “Empty
Words” Whyte goes into some depth on the use and abuse of sneer quotes. His
example focuses on post-modernist philosopher Imré Lakatos. When you say that
my “facts” are in dispute, it is clear from the quotes that you do not believe
my claims to be facts. Whyte says that in discussing the work of physicist A.
A. Michelson, Lakotos’s excessive use of sneer quotes reveals that he believes
knowledge to be impossible because facts are non-existent. This is not unique
to one philosopher. Whyte calls the abuse of quotes a hallmark of post-modernist
academic writing.
Implied Generalizations
slip into discussions – and usually slip by unchallenged. Whyte offers a bald
example. When a Christian says that homosexuality should be illegal because it
is condemned in the Bible, that is an implied generalization because the Bible
condemns many things, including the use of cotton-polyester blends. Backing off
from making illegal the use of mixed fabrics (also working on the Sabbath and
eating shellfish) then leads to an inconsistency. Whyte also offers a mundane
example in Tony Blair’s active campaigning against fox hunting while insisting
that other forms of hunting (including fishing) would never be proscribed by
his government. Why not? The
implied generalization is that cruel sports are wrong. The resultant
inconsistency is that some are acceptable after all.
The chapter “Begging the
Question” is subtle and deep. Most of this book was fun to read and I had
little difficulty relating to the material. Whyte is a good writer. His topic
is compelling. His examples are from everyday experience. However, I read
“Begging the Question” three times through and made close notes all along. It
paid off well. Whyte sets up a debate in which libertarian Jack calls for an
end to regulations. Socialist Jill claims that this would lead to mass poverty.
In fact, Jill is begging the question. Jack’s position is that property rights
are absolute. Rather than accepting the premise, Jill needs to address it by
first showing that property rights are not absolute. Whyte then offers a longer
discussion on tolerance. When a Christian fundamentalist asserts that abortion
is murder, the response is not, “If you believe that, then do not have an
abortion, but neither should you interfere with the rights of others to have
them.” Substitute the word
“murder” for “abortion” and you can see that the plea for tolerance only begs
the question: Is abortion murder or not?
You will find discussions
of false statistics, weasel words, hurrah words, morality fever, coincidences,
and more. It is easily true that no one likes to be contradicted, but that is
one way that we discover the truth. As Whyte points out, when you are crossing
the street in the false belief that there are no cars coming, you don’t mind
being contradicted. Intransigent devotion to the truth is always in your best
interest.
(An earlier version
appeared under Books on the Rebirth of Reason discussion site for September 3, 2008, here.)
PREVIOUSLY ON NECESSARY
FACTS