Exactly right. Demagoguery is an old, basic, human tactic of shifting the focus and blame for real problems from factual reasons - usually caused by the self/people - to emotional non-causes: existing prejudices, biases, racism, emotional dreams and hopes etc. All of these emotions are 'rhetoric', in that they can't stand up to factual evidence but can be overwhelmingly powerful if kept isolated from the facts.
We see it in preaching - whether from the pulpit or the political campaign; we see it in the words of activists and their causes; .... It's basic in politics and I won't give current examples here or the place will explode. I can think, however, of ONE example where a political leader refused the tactic and remained firmly rooted in reality. Remember the words: "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". Now - that was not abductive! Abduction is, after all, a technique to generate a hypothesis. BUT, a hypothesis, as pure rhetoric, is susceptible to demagoguery if it is kept isolated from factual evidence. Induction is based on a grounding of observed evidence - all those birds are black. Deduction is based on a ground of a belief that has been validated by evidentiary testing. Abudction has no grounds; it is the beginning of a hypothesis and must be subjected to testing. But without that testing, it can slip into the hands of a demagogue. Again, thanks to Ben for the brief outline - which, I still think, is useful on a list. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Ozzie To: Benjamin Udell Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 11:15 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic Ben ~ Thanks for your helpful summary ("Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the first leader to invite the public to follow a pattern of abductive inference like in a detective story ..."). Both for sport and to attain positions of leadership, Greek orators at the time of the Peloponnesian Wars invited the general public to form, accept and act on abducted hypotheses. The logical tales spun by Hitler were based upon resentment, which places him among the demagogues. Regards - Tom Wyrick On Jul 9, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote: Edwina, Ben N., list, I've been reading the online version of Ben N.'s thesis. I found that I could not save it to my computer without first opening it online, and in order to save it computer, one has to move one's mouse over some buttons in the upper right-hand corner of the view pane till a little tool tip says "Download". I'm convinced that visual design of computer programs these days is largely done by sadists. Anyway, I've been reading it, it's two PDFs, and I'm half-way through the second one. It really is very readable, and that involvement of Hitler does add a certain electric current to the discussion of abductive inference. It's not a labor to read, and it's quite interesting. There are a number of technical errors (as Ben N. warns) evident to a Peirce scholar, but these can be corrected without damaging the thesis. In response to Edwina, I'd say that Ben N. does not present Hitler's rise as having a magical or mystical element, rather a mysterious element that requires explanation. He makes a case that many scholars think that there are some very difficult questions as to who Hitler was and how did he get so far. I'm no historian and hadn't read a book on Hitler since I was a teenager. So far, I'd say that the case is not made clear enough to the general reader that Hitler didn't just get lucky in the sense that some party had to come out on top or, in the classic formulation, "somebody has to be the king of France." Ben N. outlines some argument that luck wasn't such a big part of it, but it's not clear to me yet. On the other hand, I don't think that Ben N. is relying on a "Great Men" theory of history - he says that Hitler might have made very little difference in other times and circumstances. Insofar as everybody uses abductive inference, Ben N. perhaps doesn't bring out clearly enough the difference between Hitler's use of it and others' use of it, instead he talks about how Hitler was the first leader to use it. I think I know what Ben N. is getting at, but I'd phrase it more carefully. Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the first leader to invite the public to follow a pattern of abductive inference like in a detective story (Who Murdered Germany?), and that Hitler relied for credibility on the justificatory plausibility and complex cohesion of an untested hypothesis that would take a long time to verify. Well, there's more to it, which it would be foolish of me to try to summarize. I'd ask, is Ben N. so sure that Hitler was the first such leader? Many other regimes have 'explanations' that they give to their people, sometimes involving the idea of hidden forces behind events. Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. One can certainly say that Ben Novak has made a serious effort, deserving of more attention than what some rather pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey stuff has received occasionally on peirce-l. Best, Ben On 7/9/2015 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to discuss the basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to correlate the rise of Hitler with abductive logic - that it requires that we either buy your book or read it. I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a reasonable reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think that a research topic dealt with by a member requires that members of this list read that member's work. My view is that it is incumbent on YOU, to provide members with a reasonably thorough precis of the salient points of your argument. With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is that you seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with some 'magical' or mystical element. For example, you claim that when his party took power, German politics consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In Canada, at the federal level, there are 26 political parties - and there is nothing particularly magical or surprising that only three are dominant. There are about 30 minor political parties in the US. Only two-three are dominant. Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You seem to be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of historical analysis, which examines history by focusing on the charisma or whatever of some singular causal individual. I consider this a weak analytic frame; I prefer the 'long duree' framework of the 'Annales' school (eg, Braudel), which considers infrastructural causality such as the population size, economic mode, technological capacity, trade relations etc...rather than individuals. As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not rooted in pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of the past, such that 'if only we returned to that pure mode', then, all would be well. It is now rampant in the Al Qaeda (from the 19th c!) and ISIS of the MENA. There are, I maintain, population and economic reasons for the refusal of these populations and governments to deal with the pragmatic problems of the area and the resultant retreat into fascism. Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is set up, e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely difficult to move out of the rhetoric and back down to hard reality. That requires an external intervention. Certainly, internally, some tried to stop Hitler - As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would be helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical. Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers, of due to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)? What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'? Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or read it online, but for you to explain key points to us - and then, explain why you align it with Peircean theory. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Novak To: Stephen Jarosek Cc: Stephen C. Rose ; Peirce List Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
