I always insist on discussing politics and religion in polite company, despite the ancient wisdom to avoid them. Over this holiday season, I've had the opportunity to witness a common thread in "their" argument(s):
"In my experience ..." Perhaps it stood out, first, because of our haranguing Peirce's "experience" conception of the real. But I've seen hints of it in the defense (some) atheists present for claiming Islam is a worse religion than Christianity. In any case, the 1st episode allowed me to provide a counter-argument. We were talking about subtle forms of racism and my fellow discussant suggested that, Oregon being one of the most racist States, many people who seem racist are not, actually. She said their statements about "most black people" or "most mexicans ..." (little "m" because they don't actually mean citizens of Mexico when they use the word) are simply statements of their "experience". Trying to steelman her position, she's claiming that if someone owns, say, a farm and employs a lot of brown skinned people who speak Spanish, when they talk about mexicans, they're speaking from their experience of them. And, to some mysterious extent, that argument is sound (if invalid). My counter argument was to challenge that such people don't even know what a "mexican" is. They can't define the term. Their usage is inconsitent. Etc. And if you don't have any serious understanding of the concept you've induced, then a) not only is the induction invalid, but b) any generalization from such induction is b1) flawed because ... induction and b2) flawed because the induction is invalid in the first place. She ceded the argument. The 2nd episode was Xmas eve at the only restaurant that was open here'bouts (Renee' was on call and I can't cook). The brother of the owner was at the bar (where we always sit), along with a few employees enjoying the slow night. Said brother owns a few restaurants in LA and was complaining about all the liberals there. He was happy about the shutdown and asserted that "the government is the new mafia". I attempted to show that as a false equivalence, but failed ... perhaps because he was 2 sheets gone. After we paid and were about to leave, he pulled the same thread: "I hope you know what I'm saying is only what I've learned from my own experiences." He was attempting to end the evening on a conciliatory note. I didn't even try to trash his conception of "his own experiences". Shame on me. But I'm now on the lookout for permutations on experiential rhetoric like the "my values are just as valid as yours" ... and, more importantly, ways in which such can be seen as absurd as it is. On 12/26/18 10:16 AM, Prof David West wrote: > - along with > corollaries of "anti-government control-ism," "personal-responsibility- > ism," and "my-values-are-just-as-valid-as-yours-ism." -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
