Fools Rush In

Don't rush to judgement when angry

I was reminded this week of just how important it is to not act on your emotions without first getting more information to find out if your emotions are even valid.

My son just started kindergarten. He went to the same school for pre-kindergarten and loves the place. So imagine my surprise when after the first day of school he was crying about how he doesn’t want to go back. The momma bear in me threatened to come out. What was his teacher doing to make it such a miserable experience for him and how dare she do that! He got three time outs on his first day. He’s basically a good boy and never had any discipline issues last year. Something was wrong.

The rational side of me was thinking, well, my son doesn’t listen very well and the teacher does need to be strong on discipline at the start to get the kids under control so she can teach. I mean, she is the only teacher in a room with 18 five year olds. It’s hard work. So, I told my son to do his best to behave and to give it some time. His teacher might grow on him. In the back of my mind though, I was wondering if he just got a bad teacher and whether I would have to intervene. Maybe she just doesn’t like my son and is picking on him.

And then, yesterday she called me. My son is ambidextrous and she wanted to know if she had my permission to put a mark on his right hand to remind him to use that hand when writing. His teacher seems very nice, funny and with a good sense of humor. She said that he was doing fine. Yes, she had given him a few time outs, but not because he had done anything bad. He was just being a normal 5 yr old boy who is excited to be at school around all those other kids. She just needs the kids to settle down and understand the rules so the class can run smoothly. And yes, almost all the kids have gotten time outs.

Relief! My inner momma bear, who had been worried about her cub and was considering drastic action to protect him from his mean teacher, was able to retreat to her den. Reason triumphed and I was once again reminded how important it is to act on my reason and not on my emotions. And most importantly, not to rush to judgement.

Logic Matters

Recently O'Reilly had Richard Dawkins on to discuss his new book which is about evolution. Now, I don't normally watch O'Reilly but this clip is amazing in the illogic O'Reilly uses to debate . I am posting the clip here because I think it provides an excellent example of why logic should be taught in the schools. It is important for people to learn how to discern between valid and invalid arguments because otherwise there is no good way to determine truth. And if you can't determine who is telling the truth, then you are a sucker just waiting to be taken advantage of. Anyway - here is the clip.

What is amazing about this clip is that O'Reilly doesn't say a single logical thing. NONE of his arguments follow standard rules of logic. NONE! Mostly, he uses what is called a non-sequitor. (A=C so therefore unrelated X is somehow true) In this instance, Science doesn't have the answers to everything (a=c) so therefore there must be a flying spaghetti monster or god (X= true). He uses the same structure to argue for teaching creationism in the schools.

O'Reilly also uses some informal colloquial fallacies. And really, these are his unique variations on established fallacies. The first is anonymous authority. Some really smart people (unnamed) agree with him, so he must be right. He also uses what can only be called a reverse dogmatic fallacy, which I think should be called "the O'Reilly fallacy" in honor of his repeated use of this form. Basically, a dogmatic fallacy is to arbitrarily exclude evidence in favor of X from the universe of discouse. In the O'Reilly fallacy or reverse dogmatic fallacy the refusal to allow X into the universe of discourse because X isn't logical or factually true is evidence of facism on the part of your debate opponent. I particularly like that one.

But my favorite part of this clip is when he argues by choir - essentially saying that more people believe as he does then don't so he must be correct. This is akin to saying 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong (even though they can). Argument by choir is totally irrelevant to whether any of the statements are true or logical.

So, to sum up O'Reillys illogic. Science can't explain everything, therefore the theory of biological evolution has gaps. Those gaps can only be filled by the flying spaghetti monster. If you don't allow this random and arbitrary conclusion to be taught to school children in a science class simply because it doesn't meet the minimal scientific standards for evidence or logic you are clearly a fascist and by the way 50,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong. Dawkins was right to shake his head and point out that this was a truly remarkable peice of illogic.