Tag Archives: Reasons

Fly-by Sound Bytes

24 Sep

I shouldn’t be surprised.  After all, our son who posts ‘how-to-record-music’ instructional videos on YouTube has stopped checking viewer comments.  People leave hurtful, derogatory, and often unfounded remarks.  What could be so controversial about the music recording industry!?

My husband reports on tech innovation for a national news organization.  He spends hours researching, interviewing, and writing about interesting and new products, services, trends, and industries related to technology.

The other day he held a two-way radio conversation with one of the program hosts bringing her and listeners up to date on thorium, a chemical element that can efficiently and safely power a nuclear reactor.  The 8-10 minute segment was a follow-up to one that aired two years ago in which he interviewed a former NASA engineer about thorium reactors.

Within 6-8 hours of the most recent radio program, a listener had fired off a feedback email.   Invective and name-calling combined to shame the program and the tech reporter.

However, the dissatisfied letter-writer offered nothing of substance.  The editor of the news program responded to the email politely asking for specifics and initially getting no response. Eventually, he did write a detailed rebuttal with some reasons for his sharp reaction.

When my husband analyzed each point, he saw clearly that the listener had misinterpreted much of the report.

How can that happen?

Actually, it’s not all that unusual.  Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

Here’s how Wikipedia describes it:

 Confirmation bias…… is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

As logical Joes and Janes, we must give people the benefit of the doubt before we jump to a conclusion.  I admit that I have leapt to hasty judgments because I have wanted to think the WORST about someone and their viewpoint.  Not only is that unfair, it is unkind.

So, dear friends, let us be generous and ask questions before we leap to conclusions and criticize.  And never is there an appropriate occasion to unload a putdown on someone. Take issue with the point, not the person.

 

 

Can you hold a belief and not practice it? Should you?

30 Sep

I love to read the letters to the editor

Letter to the editor

A recent one caught my eye because the author, in condemning Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, wrote:

  • ….”no one, absolutely no one, was telling that county clerk in Kentucky what to believe.  One of the founding principles of this country is that we all have the right to believe in whatever type of God we wish, and to practice that belief in whatever way we feel is appropriate.

Really?  I thought many belittled Kim Davis expressly while exercising her belief in God. Didn’t she refuse to allow her name to be on marriage certificates because she BELIEVED that this PRACTICE would NOT be APPROPRIATE?  (note I am using the writer’s terms)

So the question is:  Can one separate beliefs/values from actions?

If I believe that eating fresh food is healthier for me but I continue to eat processed foodstuff, am I being consistent?

Don’t we condemn as hypocritical those who espouse one thing and do another?

Walk the talk

The truth is that Christians are increasingly going to be subject to magnifying glass scrutiny.  We have to establish ahead of time WHAT we believe, WHY we believe it and WHAT we are willing to do to be integrated human beings.  Beliefs are worthless when they swim around as vague, unsubstantiated opinions.

Let’s ground our beliefs IN reason. And if we can’t come up with a solid defense for WHY we believe what we espouse, then maybe it’s time to jettison that value. There’s no shame in abandoning a position or changing one’s mind for solid justification.  And it’s no discredit to be honest and admit:

  • I don’t have any reason for believing X, I just WANT to believe X

I just want to

At least that’s sincere and authentic.  And while it’s okay to ‘park’ in that spot for a while, we shouldn’t stay there.  Let’s take the time to examine why holding such a belief would be rational and worthwhile.  The best reason to hold and practice a belief is because it is true.

God gave you a brain, so use it!

12 Aug

Confession:  I find it challenging to exercise patience with Christians who don’t know why they believe something.  Unable to articulate reasons, they feel put on the spot.  Their reaction is predictable – they tend to retreat behind a weak excuse: “I just have faith!”

One doesn’t have to study deeply in the Bible to notice that not only Jesus himself but many of the inspired writers used logical argumentation and evidence to support their claims.

Paul, the New Testament apostle who encountered and was transformed by the resurrected Jesus, was skilled in good debate.  A clear argument to showcase why God expects us to be rational comes from Paul’s instruction to the Christians of Corinth. They were plagued with some incertitude and fears, which came from the ambient Greek philosophy of the times that devalued the body.  These sincere but baby Christians were beginning themselves to doubt the possibility of resurrection. Paul took on their argument with full-square directness and articulated the consequences of their fear:

1 Corinthians 15:16  For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.

It’s easy to take Paul’s argument and render it into logical form.  If we just address his first thought, we arrive at this syllogism:

Premise 1: No human beings are raised from the dead

Premise 2: Christ was a human being

Conclusion:  Therefore, Christ was not raised from the dead

In his letter to them, Paul has set up the Corinthians intentionally so that they can NOT argue in this manner.  The first fifteen verses of Chapter 15 of his letter have already laid out the case for the historicity of the resurrection.  In fact, Paul’s strongest card is the fact that more than 500 people saw the newly risen Jesus during the 40 days between the resurrection and His ascension. So even though the syllogism above is in a valid form, as we see here below,

No M is P

All S is M

Therefore, No S is P

..the argument STILL fails the ‘soundness’ test.  Remember that all we have to do is show that one premise is false and the argument comes apart.  Since Jesus was fully human AND fully God, we have to accept Premise 2 as true.  We then turn to Premise 1, which states that No human beings are raised from the dead. Not so!

resurrected Jesus

The Bible recounts at least 5 or 6 people raised from the dead.  See link here for explanation of each

Therefore, by virtue of discrediting the truth of Premise # 2, the entire argument falls apart. And an argument, however valid it might be, is not sound if it is not true.  But a valid, true argument is airtight, hence unbeatable.

Do you see how logic is useful?  Being a thinking, rational Christian is NOT a contradiction in terms.  God is Himself a reason-based rational being.  Yes, He is far more multi-dimensional than us, to include being supernatural and immaterial. But we are made in His image.  Should we not expect Him to endow us with some measure of logical thinking?

Logical Gal stumbles, and then remembers!

29 Apr

I felt intimidated!

intimidation

A comment to one of these Logical Gal blog posts tripped me up.  I couldn’t make heads or tails out of what my reader wrote in his ‘logical’ pushback. First of all, it was:

  • scientific-sounding
  • smart-sounding

Thus, I felt stupid. At first.

Then I reread his words, and realized that it was also incomprehensible!

With that insight, my logical training kicked in and I felt empowered.

When someone responds to you and you don’t understand what they mean, the ONLY logical course of action is to ask them TWO clarifying questions:

  • What do you mean by ________? (whatever they say)
  • How did you arrive at your conclusion? or Why do you think/say that?

When I replied to his lengthy comment with those questions, he DID try to clarify.  And it was the same genre, to wit: scientific-sounding, smart-sounding BUT still incomprehensible.  So I took it home to my resident scientific expert, my husband.  And HE couldn’t make any sense out of what the guy was writing. I felt a bit better.

In all honesty, I did dialogue back and forth with this gentleman because I appreciated that he had READ my blog and also that he had taken the time to write a comment and share his thinking.  In the end he and I both stopped because neither one of us was making headway toward mutual understanding.

But I learned a lot!  When you don’t know WHAT to say, just ask some questions.  This is wise AND easy and the pay off is three-fold:

  • you’ll gain time to think
  • you’ll gain more information to aid your thinking
  • you honor your interlocutor by acknowledging his words

Logical Gal and Santa

24 Dec

Santa Definition  It all gets down to terms and clarity, doesn’t it!

Actually, defining terms is the very first step in logic.   And for good reason!  I can see why there might be not a few nervous children tonight, the eve of Christmas 2014.  They might be wondering, given the legend of Santa Claus, how good one must be to merit a ‘successful’ visit from Saint Nick!

Since the tradition of a gift-giving jolly fat man magically distributing packaged surprises to all the children in the world happens to have accreted to the celebration of the birth of the incarnate (en-fleshed) God, I think I’ll leave you with some good news.

You don’t have to be good enough for Jesus to save you, no matter HOW one defines the term.  In fact, you might be humbled by the fact that it is impossible for you or me to be ‘good enough’ to reach Holy God’s standard of perfection.  That’s why you and I, and every human being ever born, need a savior.

The only requirement (and each one of us is totally qualified) is that we be a sinful, rebellious man, woman or child.  By nature, we meet THAT standard through and through!

We don’t have to clean ourselves up first in order to qualify for Jesus’ offer of salvation.  He wants to rescue us just the way we are.  (but He’ll set about renovating us from top to bottom once we belong to Him!)

For one woman’s simple explanation of this good news, dialed down to the level that young children can grasp, go to this site Link to this Great News explained simply.

Good News

In summary, I wish you a very Happy Christmas.  And should you be fellowshipping with friends and family this week, be sure to prepare your mind and mouth FIRST to think of and ask a question before sharing your views.  More times than not, wanting to put in my 2 cents worth, I have misunderstand someone’s point of view and ASSUMED wrongly, to my chagrin!

Questions to have at your disposal:

  • What do you mean by ‘good enough’?
  • What are your reasons for saying that ‘the sky is falling‘  (how did you reach your conclusion?)

 

Logical Gal caught without a good argument

6 Jan

There, I did it again!  I opened my mouth, made an assertion and was surprised when my conversation partner asked me why I thought that!!!  Uhhh….I immediately went into SCRAMBLE-mode. Not a comfortable position from which to articulate good reasons for my belief.

How did this happen?  Simply because I was at a New Year’s open house with school colleagues and was trying to make conversation. I happened to mention a book we had given a family member about how Teddy Roosevelt saved college football.  I linked that historical anecdote to the topic of the ‘feminization of American men’.

Link to book

And it was THAT statement that caused my colleague to look at me blankly and respond that he had never heard such a view before.  And as his due, he asked me for my reasons to support my premise. For as Greg Koukl teaches, ‘He who makes an assertion assumes the burden of proof for defending it.’

I won’t describe why I brought up the argument, for the point of this reflection is how uncomfortable I felt MAKING the case for something I haven’t actually articulated before.

It really doesn’t matter that I’ve read articles, skimmed blog posts or heard interviews with various people talking about this issue.  If I haven’t thought through the reasons myself and at least DISCUSSED them with my husband in a safe place, then I should not open my mouth in public.

This is not the first time I’ve experienced ‘egg on my face’  .

If I have ONE logic resolution to make for 2014, it is this: If I want to discuss a topic in which I feel weak or unprepared, I can always ask my conversation partner HIS thoughts about the subject.  This questioning gains me more time to think and I might learn something, too!

Question: What area in critical thinking and argumentation do you need to work on in 2014? 

Logical Gal is shocked by bald-faced naked assertion

16 Dec

Where’s the rationale? There IS none!

I’m amazed at what people can get away with!

I read the local newspaper so I can have material for this blog!  Today being Sunday, I wasn’t disappointed.  A local guest columnist wrote to persuade us to DO something to influence President Obama’s decision about the Keystone Pipeline that has been planned to allow crude oil to run from Canada to Texas.

I really don’t know enough about issue yet to make the cost-benefit analysis necessary to evaluate whether we should undertake such a project.  I imagine there are good arguments on both sides. Although like most controversial topics, each side probably talks past the other because of how they have framed the stakes.  But that’s another blog post.

What caught my attention today, however, was the lack of reasons offered for a powerful premise. To wit: “The proposed pipeline, which will at times break and spill oil, will be 1700 miles long and pass through….fertile farmland….crossing aquifers….drinking water.”

Wait a minute, does this college-level teacher have a crystal ball? What statistics does he cite for past breaks and spills?  To be fair to the engineers constructing the pipeline, he could just as easily assume they have designed a ‘better’ pipeline to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of breakage.

What logic has taught me is to read and listen more carefully.  Every word DOES communicate. Writers have an obligation to offer sound reasons for their point of view.  Readers and consumers of the word must ALSO take responsibility for critical listening and questioning.  Otherwise, we might be lazy and pass on an unvetted assertion to some unthinking soul.

Question: What assertions do you make without offering reasons?