Truth, strike two

[ciphergoth]

Thanks for some interesting and surprising responses to the JFK question. At the risk of creating more heat than light, let me try another example, one that I think might be a little less comfortable to be neutral about.

It seems that many people believe that on the morning of September 11, 2001, four thousand or more Israelis who were working at the World Trade Center did not show up for work.

Are those people wrong?

(Update: amended as per ajva's caveat)

Comments

[werenerd.livejournal.com]

Do you really believe that if we had this debate on livejournal, we could get through it without someone coming in, foaming at the mouth, accusing one of us of anti-Semitism? I don't - which is why I won't engage.

This is not the way that philosophers get at the meaning of truth -- log rolling on powder kegs. They de-emotionalize the issues so that they can see through to the underlying logic.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

The debate to me seemed more about "what do you do with something plainly untrue, and which causes harm by people believing it?"

Upthread, I had a discussion with someone who had to deal with her boss sending out a forward saying tampons had asbestos, and everyone should write to the companies to tell them to stop. Snopes debunks this, but goes farther than just pointing out that it's untrue and causing undue fear, but moreover distracting from some of the real (though relatively rare) dangers of tampons.

Would you be happier discussing the tampon thing?

Or perhaps something on a higher and more immediate level of harm: alternative cures for malignant melanoma?

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Do you really believe that if we had this debate on livejournal, we could get through it without someone coming in, foaming at the mouth, accusing one of us of anti-Semitism? I don't - which is why I won't engage.

At this stage I think it's very, very unlikely that some stranger is going to come in and accuse you of anti-Semitism, and even more unlikely that anyone who knows you will, but if you do I'll delete their comments and bar them from commenting - I won't have that sort of thing here.

As vvalkyri says, though, it doesn't have to be this example. Please feel free to choose your own example; anything where you think most people who read this journal generally feel that X is not true and it's a problem that some people go around asserting X. It does necessarily have to have a little more emotional load than the JFK example, though, because what I'm trying to find out is whether you're prepared to defend your position even where it really matters. Any of the alternatives she suggests would be equally good for me.

[badmagic.livejournal.com]

This is not the way that philosophers get at the meaning of truth -- log rolling on powder kegs. They de-emotionalize the issues so that they can see through to the underlying logic.

That's a very good example of a provably untrue statement. Aristotle defined three modes of arguement:

- logos, logic and reason
- pathos, arguement by emotional appeal
- ethos, convincing listeners or one's moral character.

Aristotle would argue by appeals to emotion and morality. Either philosopher do, at times, not de-emotionalize the issues, or Aristotle was not a philosopher.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I think one can reasonably read "philosophers" as referring to those of the present day, rather than all philosophers throughout history. However there are several philosophical positions which are criticised today on the grounds that they imply morally repellent things; some say this about determinism, a charge I'm happy to defend it against.

[badmagic.livejournal.com]

I think there's a difference between "all philosophers throughout history" and someone whose writings western philosophy is founded on.

If that's the case, though, he's still wrong. In the modern day, you have the radial deconstructions, who'll tell you everything is subjective, including "a = a," and the philosophers that the US State Department hires to consider questions like "what grants a state legitimacy in the eyes of the governed?" which can't be separated from emotional issues.