There is a growing consensus that political rhetoric in the United States has become too overheated, that passions are bubbling over, and that reasonableness is on the wane. If more people understood the function of the burden of proof in rational discourse, we could begin to address that problem.
The reason many liberals see conservative resistance to heath care reform, and to President Obama's agenda as a whole, as racism is clear: Racism. That is, they voted for Obama only because he was black, so their natural assumption is that whoever now opposes him must also be driven by the fact that he's black.
According to the logical standards of contemporary liberalism, I just proved that liberals are racists. In reality, however, I did nothing of the sort. All I did was put forward a theory. I didn't offer a shred of evidence except my presumed capacity to read the minds of people with whom I disagree. I came nowhere near meeting the burden of proof for that particular argument.
The burden of proof is the standard of evidence reasonably required to support an argumentative point. What this means, in practical terms, is that the more provocative the allegation, the higher the burden of proof. In his famous critique of alien abduction stories and UFO sightings, the late Carl Sagan succinctly summed up the principle: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Judging by what passes for political discourse on the Left, this lesson seems altogether lost. Take, for example, the charge that opposition to the Obama agenda is fueled by racism. Earlier this month on Bill Maher's HBO program, for example, actress-comedienne (sort of) Janeane Garafalo declared, "It's obvious to anyone who has eyes in this country that the tea-baggers, the 9/12-ers . . . are clearly white power movements. What they don't like about the President is that he's black." Given the lack of corroborating evidence that followed, the words "obvious" and "clearly" could almost be read as ironic, but Garafalo was dead serious. As she continued, she was interrupted several times by rounds of applause from the studio audience. (Brief aside: It's a fallacy to think Maher's show or his studio audience is any more cerebral than Jerry Springer's or his. The fact that the former focuses on national politics while the latter focuses on sexual infidelity doesn't raise the level of debate. "Puh-leeze!" is not one whit more logically decisive than "Yeah, well f#@% you!")
Garafalo's comments, of course, echo those of former President Jimmy Carter, who in September asserted that "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American . . . and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."
Well, fine. Except the charge of widespread racism is an extraordinary claim — especially since it comes on the heels of not only the election of a black president, but also of Obama's lofty approval ratings . . . which lasted, coincidentally enough, until he began rolling out his agenda. That his approval ratings tanked when they did strongly suggests that the agenda, not the man nor his skin color, is at issue. On what evidence did Carter rest his case?
His memories and impressions.
Now Carter is 85 years old, and doddering significantly, and Garafalo is full of the raging certainty of the CSPAN caller. But how do you write off the fact that as she delivered her latest rant, her fellow Maher panelist, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, could be seen nodding in agreement? Indeed, the notion that racism is fueling resistance to Obamacare has become a virtual truism on the op-ed page of the Times, with variations on the theme sounded by Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert. When pressed for evidence, they fall back on a few allegedly racist signs seen at Tea Party rallies: "Homey don't play dat," "Long legged mack daddy," "When his lips move, he's lying," and the obligatory Obama-equals-Hitler photoshops. Even if you think these are coded expressions of racial animus, rather than inarticulate expressions of anti-Obama sentiment, would they meet the burden of proof for the initial allegation — that the movement itself is overwhelmingly racist?
Not even close.
What's going on here is liberal commentators reasoning backwards. They begin with an article of faith — the notion that many conservatives are diehard racists — and hunt down anomalies for support. Their methodology is no more valid than biblical literalists who stumble across a few scraps of ancient driftwood on a hillside and shout, "Eureka, Noah's Ark!"
Suppose the shoe were on the other foot. Would a recitation of the names Tawana Brawley (Wappingers Falls, 1987), Crystal Gail Mangum (Duke University, 2006) and Damnell Ndonye (Hofstra University, 2009) prove that black women habitually lie about sexual assault? Of course not. Given the counterintuitive nature of the idea that ethnicity correlates with false accusations of rape, and given the substance and range of counterevidence that can be brought forward to refute the idea, the claim ranks as extraordinary. The burden of proof runs a heck of a lot higher than dropping three names.
Facts are cheap. To paraphrase Madge the manicurist from the old Palmolive commercials: You're soaking in them. But not every fact carries equal evidentiary weight. Quality and quantity matter. Cherry-picking a handful of factual outliers, in other words, is not enough to overturn the common sense view of the reality you're describing. Nor is it incumbent on those who subscribe to the common sense view to defend their position from scratch. When you're arguing against common sense, the burden of proof is astronomically higher on you than on your opponents.
Recognition of where the burden of proof rests cuts like a hot knife through the butter-brained logic of conspiracy theorists. Case in point: 9/11 Truthers. Not one of them has ever come near the evidentiary standard required to unseat the prevailing explanation of their concern. Truthers cite traces of "super-thermite" allegedly found in the dust at Ground Zero. Even if it were true — and to date no one has come forward with the material — how would that revelation stack up against live video of passenger jets crashing into the Twin Towers and each tower starting to collapse at the exact point of the jets' impact? The Truthers have a millennium or so of 'splaining to do before their opponents have to lift an argumentative finger.
Truthers on the Left (and, to be fair, Obama Birthers on the Right) are caricatures of rational thinkers, analytical burlesques whose access to a computer modem transforms them from tightly-wound troubled loners to tightly-knit troubled communities. But their inability to grapple with the burden of proof is reflected in the broader political culture. How many left-of-center talking heads and columnists, for example, regard as axiomatic the proposition that President Bush lied the United States into war with Iraq? If you stop and think about it, though, you realize the claim is extraordinary because it presupposes moral monstrosity. It presupposes, in effect, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, as well as their entire staffs, would intentionally authorize mass murder on a scale of thousands in order to . . . do what? Make their already rich friends slightly richer? You can believe it if you like — as perhaps a majority on the political Left now do — but unless you've got videotape of the principals hashing out the details, or at least a memo with their signatures demonstrating their intent, then all you've got is another article of faith.
There is a growing consensus that political rhetoric in the United States has become too overheated, that passions are bubbling over, and that reasonableness is on the wane. If more people understood the function of the burden of proof in rational discourse, we could begin to address that problem. Healthy debate is not measured by decibels. Not all voices deserve to be heard.
Mark,
You are not the first on this web page to lament, opine, document, or query, (insert verb of choice here) the challenge of carrying on reasoned political debate with liberals. I will point out to you, as I have with the others, that the mistake is yours. It is a common mistake that most all of us have made at one point in time in the past.
You begin from the premise that there is going to be a debate on a political issue; the issue matters not. It can be any one of the plethora of policy disagreements conservatives have over almost any domestic or foreign issue. I can only think of one time I found myself in agreement with this administration, and that was when the President ordered the shooting of the Somali Pirates in order to free a captain taken hostage.
Anyway, you make your first reasonable statement that; “I think…” and the next thing you realize, you are being denigrated, demonized, pilloried, and persecuted: Literally and figuratively destroyed. You have no idea what you did to elicit such a response.
The actual problem here stems from a violation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads as follows; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The US Government has allowed this to be breached in several ways; the first of which is that there is a ‘state sponsored’ religion. This religion is called Liberal/Progressivism. This is a ‘state sponsored’ religion that is observed in Congress, taught in schools, practiced openly, with no interference, across the country, and refined on a daily basis by the encyclicals issued by the White House.
The cry “racist” is really the cry “heretic”! Look around; see the manner in which the left not only treats the utterances issued by “The One”; but also how they treat those outside the fold. Also observe how a person who has sinned against Obama is treated. They are ostracized, libeled, excommunicated.
Once you understand that you are not discussing politics but religion, much will become clear. I’ve actually marveled at how much similarity exists between Liberal/Progressives and Islamists. They are rigidly dogmatic, suffer no deviation from their proscriptions, and resort to invective and violence almost immediately. They tolerate no freedom of thought, proclaim their way as the only path to salvation, and condemn all who fail to agree as damned to eternal suffering.
A few critical details are missing from your argument. Three skyscrapers – the twin towers and building seven – collapsed on 9/11. And there is a peer paper that needs your special attention…
———–
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.
What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?
These are central questions raised by this scientific study.
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).
The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.
Some observations about the production of this paper:
1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here:
http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation
The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. http://www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.
The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”
We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.
2. Second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer of BYU. http://www.physics.byu.edu/images/people/farrer.jpg
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.
4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.
5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000...
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10669-008-9182-4
6. James Hoffman has written three essays further explaining the implications and results of the paper. Thank you, Jim, for this work! http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/index.html
7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frederic Henry-Courannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.
Now read the paper for yourself, and let your voice regarding these discoveries be heard!
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm then click on “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered…”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761
The paper itself can be found here….
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
The title is…Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains..
Jim Hoffman has written 3 new essays on this which can be found here….
1.Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust:
Scientists Discover Both Residues And Unignited Fragments Of High-Tech Metal Incendiaries In Debris From the Twin Towers
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
2.Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives:
As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosives_evidence_timeline.html
3.A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario:
A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incindiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html
It seems to me that trying to prove that all opposition to President Obama is based on racism would be as pointless as trying to prove none of it is.
Bill Wavering:
Sidebar issue: “I can only think of one time I found myself in agreement with this administration, and that was when the President ordered the shooting of the Somali Pirates in order to free a captain taken hostage.”
That this required presidential approval tell us that the LBJ form of micromanagement is still alive and well.
You have put forth the best explanation I’ve ever read of how progressivism/liberalism is a religion.
Post number 2 makes for an amusing case-in-point of the original article’s thesis. It’d be nice to think that the irony was intentional.
As you pointed out, “truthers” probably do buy into the claim that”…presupposes moral monstrosity. It presupposes, in effect, that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, as well as their entire staffs, would intentionally authorize mass murder on a scale of thousands in order to . . . do what? “
However to state (in being fair …and what balanced? even though there is no comparison?) that “birthers” the name given to conservatives by liberals, ala Alinsky’s rules for radicals, who want Obama to present the same documentation that every other president and candidate has had to provide, not just proof of birth but college, passport, calendar from tenure as Senator etc., is disingenuous to say the least.
Re: “However to state … that ‘birthers’ … who want Obama to present the same documentation that every other president and candidate has had to provide, not just proof of birth but college, passport, calendar from tenure as Senator etc., is disingenuous to say the least.”
If I read this right, it’s sorta like Dan Rather’s demands that Bush release his military records.
One thing on which conspiracy theorists survive is science’s inability to answer all questions surrounding a monstrous act of proportions such as 9/11. Therefore, the most innocuous, unexplainable observation, such as a reporting error or rumor is magnified as “proof” of a conspiracy. We have reached the point where lack of proof has become proof in itself.
Feser writes:
“… I would suggest … that the post-Enlightenment pretense of hostility to authority, tradition, and common sense as such, and especially the extreme form of it represented by the likes of Marx and Nietzsche, is what really underlies the popularity of conspiracy theories, particularly those involving 9/11. The absurd idea that to be intelligent, scientific, and intellectually honest requires a distrust for all authority per se and a contempt for the opinions of the average person, has so deeply permeated the modern Western consciousness that conspiratorial thinking has for many people come to seem the rational default position. And it also explains why even mainstream outlets like Time and Vanity Fair, while by no means endorsing the views of the conspiracy theorists, have tended to treat them with kid gloves, as if they were harmless and well-meaning eccentrics instead of shrill and hate-filled crackpots. The belief that extremism in the attack on authority is no vice has a powerful appeal even for suit-wearing journalists and media executives (especially if they are liberals), even if they have too much sense to follow it out consistently.
“Yet no civilization can be healthy which nurtures such delusions, for they strike at the very heart of a society’s core institutions – family, religion, schools, political institutions, and so forth – and replace the (sometimes critical) allegiance we should feel for them with a corrosive skepticism. Conspiracy theories are only the most extreme symptom of this disease. Less dramatic, but in the long run more dangerous, is the relentless tendency of the Western intelligentsia to denigrate the Western past and present, massively exaggerating the vices of their own civilization and the virtues of its competitors, and putting the worst possible spin on the motives and policies of its current leaders while minimizing or excusing the crimes of its enemies. This would be dangerous under the best of circumstances. It is doubly so while we are at war with enemies who know no such self-doubt and self-hatred.”
“We the Sheeple? Why Conspiracy Theories Persist”
By Edward Feser
Sept. 20, 2006
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B
Of course, Professor Feser is too kind in his criticism of American conspiracy theorists. They are revolutionaries, Leftists who are hell-bent on tearing down the existing order, which is the reason for their constant defiance to authority and tradition. Fueling this are sympathetic “mainstream outlets like Time and Vanity Fair” who operate on what I term “Newton’s Third Law of Social Studies,” – that is, “For every opinion there is an equal but opposite opinion.”
Regarding this author’s last paragraph: if we are able to get back to the idea of “burden of proof” then passions might “bubble over” less frequently. Not always. In the case of Officer Crowley and Professor Gates, one person sees proof and another doesn’t. (My theory: all evidence of racist utterances or acts is circumstantial; no arguments will be “won” but maybe many years form now the hurtful injustice of racism accusations will be finally appreciated).
But if we were to agree that we don’t want passions to bubble over (we are no where near a consensus on that) then how about limiting our exchanges to matter of fact questions and soft-pedaling the sarcasm?
There is no sarcasm in Mr. Goldblatt’s article. Thanks!