Crimes Against Logic is a gem of a book I've discovered since beginning a paper/class on Epistemology.
We commonly form illogical opinions and too often
put voice to them so we can then be quoted by our unthinking friends.
Much of what I read and hear about politics and controversial issues has everything to do with who can speak loudest and repeat their stance most often. What happened to intelligent reasoning of issues and giving the opposition a hearing in pursuit of better understanding and a clearer way forward?
Compromise is sometimes a dirty word, but not always. I've been blessed by gems of intelligence from those who disagreed with me, such that they saved me from putting my foot in it in pursuant conversations down the road.
This week's sports pages and opinion pieces had excellent examples of illogic. The most obvious was the quip, "Tiger Woods didn't deserve to win The Masters after what he's done."
Hmm. See the problem here?
Firstly, you deserve to win a golf tournament if you have a lower score than the other golfers. That's it. That's the criteria for winning. There's no moral element to it as long as you didn't cheat on the course.
Another problem, when will Tiger have done enough penance, time, groveling or excelling that he might be allowed to deserve anything good ever again?
Who decides that, and by what measurement? Many of the people most verbally indignant about Tiger's past behaviour are Christians who have forgotten that they are saved by grace and actually deserve to rot in hell for eternity. I include myself in that deserving brood, but not in the crowd that's throwing stones at Tiger.
We commonly form illogical opinions and too often
put voice to them so we can then be quoted by our unthinking friends.Much of what I read and hear about politics and controversial issues has everything to do with who can speak loudest and repeat their stance most often. What happened to intelligent reasoning of issues and giving the opposition a hearing in pursuit of better understanding and a clearer way forward?
Compromise is sometimes a dirty word, but not always. I've been blessed by gems of intelligence from those who disagreed with me, such that they saved me from putting my foot in it in pursuant conversations down the road.
This week's sports pages and opinion pieces had excellent examples of illogic. The most obvious was the quip, "Tiger Woods didn't deserve to win The Masters after what he's done."
Hmm. See the problem here?
Firstly, you deserve to win a golf tournament if you have a lower score than the other golfers. That's it. That's the criteria for winning. There's no moral element to it as long as you didn't cheat on the course.
Another problem, when will Tiger have done enough penance, time, groveling or excelling that he might be allowed to deserve anything good ever again?
Who decides that, and by what measurement? Many of the people most verbally indignant about Tiger's past behaviour are Christians who have forgotten that they are saved by grace and actually deserve to rot in hell for eternity. I include myself in that deserving brood, but not in the crowd that's throwing stones at Tiger.
Comments