A Final Word: Thinking, for Dummies.

Oh, my, how time does seem to slip away.  To think it was only a month ago I received this prestigious recognition.  I’m disappointed in myself; I did not pen nearly as much as I should have.  I can only make unsatisfactory excuses and claim I was very busy; which is true, of course.  However, it doesn’t defend the inaction.  I shall have to redouble my efforts, in the future.

At any rate, after much consideration, I decided my final word as king for this year should be nothing short of a lecture.  To be frank, many of the readers on this site are continuing to make terribly inadequate arguments masked as rational thought.  I have already yelled about this, of course.  But shouting and assuming the behavior will correct itself seems farfetched.  Thus, I have decided to show all of you how to make a compelling argument that does not leave me wishing to punch out a geriatric’s dentures.

The dominant problem that I’m seeing is one of assumptions.  Namely, you make big ass assumptions that only someone who already agrees with you would ever acknowledge or support.  Allow me to draw you a visual.

Behold the power of paint!

You’ll notice something interesting about this chart.  Since this group is cyclical, it can be modeled with complex analysis.  Actually, that’s not entirely truthful.  Its group shares characteristics of behavior also seen in complex analysis, so they both can be discussed similarly.  And if you correlate it with time and assume an infinite number of steps, then it becomes a complex problem.  For our purposes, however, we can simply talk about the group behavior without assuming continuous conditions.

So, let’s assume this chart is divided into t discrete implicit steps (arrows), where t=0,1,2,3,4, and each step itself is marked by the explicit function (boxes), f(t), denoting a specific outcome.  So, f(2), for instance, is reaching the point of being able to input data into your equation, whereas t=2 is the assumed precondition of having fitted your model to the real world, if possible.

Now, just as in complex analysis, observe that a curious problem arises at a specific point on this little diagram of ours; the origin, f(0).  The problem isn’t so much singularly the point t=0, but rather that f(0) is shared with another value, t=4.

However, this creates an unmanageable problem that stems from the heart of logic itself.  The proper terminology is injectivity, or the property of being injective.  It is more commonly referred to as the principle of one-to-one.  I will lay it out for you.  If you map f(0)=a, and then map f(4)=a, you see that they both equal a (in this case, the declaration “you’re right”).  But, what if we try to discuss the issue from the opposite direction?  This principle of well behaved groups is called surjectivity, or the property of being surjective.  It implies that if you have a function f(x)=y, you can also rearrange the equation to discuss the function f(y)=x.

Notice, in this case, if we start by saying that our output, a, has occurred (you’re right), you cannot conclude whether:

• i) You assumed you were right, OR
• ii) You proved you were right.

I mean, look at it from the perspective of Boolean algebra.

There are two conditions here: A and P, where A is assuming you’re right and P is proving you’re right, and, theoretically, both in our example amount to reaching the same conclusion.

Ask some questions, then:

If you assume you’re right and prove you’re right, do you conclude you’re right?  Yes.

If you assume you’re wrong but prove you’re right, do you conclude you’re right?  Yes.

If you assume you’re right but prove you’re wrong, do you conclude you’re right?  Surprisingly, yes, according to this method of thinking, since one of your answers would be so.

If you assume you’re wrong and prove you’re wrong, do you conclude you’re right?  No.

Obvious then, the condition of proving you’re correct, through a method that utilizes both the assumption of correctness and the application of reason, is an inclusive OR statement, where you generally acknowledge yourself to be correct, whether through proving it or just believing it to be so; even in the event that you’re actually wrong.  Provided you’ve done one, you come out with the same answer.

The takeaway is, simply, no man is capable of both presuming his being correct and proving his being correct to others.  Remember, f(assumption) has yielded many interesting conclusions in its day, including that the earth is flat; filled with a plasma that may leak if drilling was conducted too deeply; or even the center of the universe, to name a few.  The impact on human life has been far reaching as well, condoning stupidity and even unthinkable acts of immorality like murder.  Needless to say, some things cannot be proven; these are issues of the heart and of faith.  However, while we have faith in our beliefs, we must restrict action on that which we can deem to well enough know.

In complex analysis, addressing this issue is done by restricting the domain, which is reduced to 0 < t <= 4.  We do the same here.  Since it should be the aim of anyone to prove the validity of their assertions, we omit the original position, t=0 from our technique.  It is an erroneous judgment that must be risen above.  Conduct oneself with integrity and impartiality, assuming only the barest minimum necessary, and ergo let reason, morality and sound judgment play the part of guide.

So what can this lesson be used for in day to day conduct?  Let me be perfectly clear, I do not believe for a second that when the “scientists” involved in climate change research set out, they thought for less than an instant there was even the most obscure chance of them being wrong.  They have admitted as much in various interviews and discussions over the past several decades.  And as such, they have conducted themselves with all the distinction of maggots, going to great lengths to force their desired conclusion to be brought to fruition.  The means of doing so were irrelevant; they seem to have omitted large amounts of data in this particular instant. 

Before this even began, however, they had the intention of creating a model that emulated their predisposition.  As such, all of the subsequent steps, erroneous or perfectly executed, are insignificant.

The root of their argument is tantamount to, and as childish as, declaring, “I am right, so I am right!”

Sadly, many of you have begun facilitating this sort of argument by repeating it abroad.  You are easy to spot, don’t think yourself imperceptibly clever.  Your arguments always degrade to a declaration followed by ramblings of moral imperatives.  As such, you say queer things like, “We need to save the planet from global warming because it is a socially responsible thing to do”, or, “People who don’t want to stop global warming are selfish, greedy, and don’t care about the planet.”  It is usually followed by some sort of justification for this process, like, “…it’s as simple as that.”

Listen to me carefully, for I shall make this unquestionable.  There is nothing simple about those arguments.  They are a clusterfuck of unproven assumptions, contradictions, and really, accusations which will never win anyone of clear mind or conscience over.

Argumentation can be improved, then, by starting smaller.  As I’ve said, it is impossible to get away from some form of assumption.  But good logic is conducted from assembling many small truths defined eloquently from the beginning.

For instance, if you were trying to argue against me, I would suggest commencing from an axiom that quality of life is stability.  The compliment of this argument is that quality of life is instability; only anarchists would agree with that.

Next you could argue that the set of stability, S={finances, health, social interaction, shelter, sustenance, environment,…}.  Then, you could say that, in order for there to be stability in your life, you require a majority of the components of a stable life to be, themselves, stable (not hard to imagine). 

You could then assume that our environment, as a whole, is sufficiently important to consider independently; that if something should render it unstable, it will not be possible for stability to ensue in the rest of the system.

You could define the function of the environment, in terms of appropriate inputs, such that E(t,p,c,f,…) is approaching an unstable solution.

Finally, you could show that the component p (people) is significant enough to the functionality of E that S is an unstable set, through correlation techniques and impact results of partial consideration of p, independently, on the system, and deduce global warming then requires addressing.

But, I suppose, if you did all of that, you likely wouldn’t believe global warming alarmists anyway…

If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter