- Politics and Social Issues»
- Politics & Political Science
Reason, Rationality, and Critical Thinking Disappears On Hub
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
I recently saw a few Hubs by the same author, who's name I won't mention. But I will relate what took place on those Hubs when I took issue with the content of what he wrote, and in the comments section where I pointed out where exactly I thought the premise of his argument fell apart and undermined what he was attempting to say. In other words, I didn't just come into his Hub and say; you're wrong, because I don't like what you said, and I find if offensive. I came in and said you're wrong, and here is where and most importantly, WHY you are wrong. What followed was probably the most ridiculous excuse for arguments that I've EVER seen from anybody on Hub Pages.
Today we find ourselves in the most divided country, ideologically speaking, that I’ve seen in my lifetime. I mean…I knew it was divided, but I had no idea that the division was between those that lived in what I think most people would call the real world and those that find comfort in an alternate universe where reality must conform to ideology regardless of what the cost to their credibility as a rational human being may be. What I found right here on the Hub Pages was the most blatantly embarrassing and demonstrably obscene avoidance and total denial of the truth for the sake of ideology that anybody could offer, and it was endorsed and supported by a cadre of sympathizers to this mindless betrayal of reason, rationality, logic, and any semblance of critical thought.
It’s one thing to say; I’m a conservative, or I’m a liberal. Or I’m a theist, or I’m an atheist. But it’s something quite different to say that I will lie right to your face, get caught in that lie, essentially tell you that up is down, black is white, left is right, yes is no, and everyone watching this take place will ignore that lie, and that insanity and attack you for demonstrating and proving conclusively, that I lied. I will accuse you of attacking me because of my race, and call you a racist for challenging the premise of my Hub. Not figuratively, but literally. I will accuse you of attempting to “lynch” me for criticizing what I wrote. I will openly admit to playing the “race card” in front of all the people commenting on this Hub, and tell that I plan on using it again. And in the end, I will delete all of your comments that disagreed with me, as well as those of the only other commenter that tried to stand for reason, logic and rationality and all those that are part of my group will pat me on the back for doing it.
In the course of reading these Hubs, the author claimed to have written 3 books, planned a “world class website”, would be doing TV and Radio interviews, and hitting the lecture circuit.
Having written two books myself; “Political Logic”, and “Growing up White in Racist America”, both of which can be found on Amazon.com as well as having recorded 3 CD’s of acoustic guitar music, I told this person that if he had indeed written three books, he would be facing criticism from everywhere on what he had written, and he’d better get used to dealing with challenges to his ideas.
At that point, one of his “minions” called me a liar, and accused me of making that up. He demanded that I prove what I said by telling him who I was. I don’t use my real name on Hub Pages or sites where I can create a “user name”, since I don’t like putting out a lot of personal information in the internet. He insisted that I was a dirt bag, and other slanderous remarks poured out of him, and finally I told him that if I demonstrated that what I said was true, I would expect a complete retraction, plus an apology for the things that I was being called. I then posted these links. http://www.amazon.com/Growing-up-White-Racist-America-ebook/dp/B00H7XH13W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430979066&sr=8-1&keywords=Larry+Allen+Brown
After checking out the links, he then refused to retract what he’d said about me and denied that it was my work, saying that it proved nothing, even though excerpts from the Political Logic book are among the Hubs I created right here. They’re part of my catalog of Hubs which feature the cover of the book. The Icon that I used at that time was a photo of me that was a photo from the most recent CD and the other person commenting who was also undergoing the same kind of treatment from these characters, visited YouTube sites where he found my music and a person that looked exactly like the Icon that I was using and the name of that person was the same name as the author of the two books. It was me of course. I hadn’t been lying about any of it. After seeing the proof of what I’d said, the response from that person was he didn’t care and had no intention of retracting anything he’d said, and got what he wanted which was having me reveal the sites that carried my two books and the CD’s, which he refused to accept as evidence of what I said. It was clear that he had no intentions of “manning up” to his mistake and would simply ignore the evidence. Smearing me was really all that mattered to him. The truth be damned. I then put the question to the author of the Hub where these comments were taking place. I asked him if the person that demanded proof of my work was wrong in his accusations and slander, and owed me a retraction and an apology? Yes or NO? His response was NO! He was in full support of the person that slandered me, and lied about me and my work and even after proving that what I said was true, still refused to accept that truth and was backed by the author of the Hub. This author also wrote a Hub dealing with religious matters. I reminded him that if he’s going to preach to others about his Christian beliefs, he may want to consider his own violation of the 9th Commandment which states “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”, which went completely over his head and which of course he ignored. After all, he’s a Christian and has no time for practicing the 10 Commandments.
This is a person that made the claim that “actually both MLK and Rosa Parks were Soviet operatives.” And King and Parks were two of the pawns the Soviets used. He also said that this is no conspiracy theory. So Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were on the KGB payroll.
One person said: “Where in hell did you get that information, from J Edgar Hoover ? I don't believe what you said and challenge you to prove you ain't just passing mis and dis information like Fox News and Teaparty Republicans. Tell me where I can find your facts, I'll research it.”
His response was; “I am in no way obligated to prove anything to you. I am not a little kid in grammar school and you are not one of my teachers”
Actually he is obligated to prove the truth of the claim that he’s making especially when it involves damaging the character of others. The burden of proof of an allegation falls on the person that makes the claim. In other words, in America we are innocent until proven guilty. That means that it’s up to the person making an accusation to prove that the other person is guilty as charged. The person that asked where he got that information from was told: “If you are really interested in becoming aware of the "true stories" of MLK and Rosa Parks, do the same thing I did. Do a whole lot of investigation and homework. And of course, I’m certain that the source of his information couldn’t possibly be biased. It would be totally accurate. He could have provided some links to where he got this information but he wasn’t about to go there. The links would no doubt reveal a political agenda was in play.
During and exchange I was having with another person regarding Jim Crow laws, this person was insisting that it was Democrats that were to blame. He said this: “If you can be so wrong about that how can anything you say make any sense. I'd suggest next time you read this http://www.theacru.org/jimcrow/ and think before you speak. I'll help you out with a summary: and ended with this parting shot: “So Addagio, maybe you'd do better on some liberal blog where they welcome lies and distortions about conservatives because you have shown your stripes here and they aren't red, white and blue.” Implying of course that only conservatives are “red white and blue”. Liberals are not Americans.
His remarks to me were totally condescending and totally off the mark. I don’t take to being condescended to by people, least of all those ignorant of facts. So responded in kind with language that he could understand:
“Ahhhh...think before you speak. It would be a great concept for you to embrace. That way you wouldn't look like a stupid ignoramus. Jim Crow was a Conservative ideology. Here's just how stupid your comment is. It's like being the worst driver in the world and blaming it on the Chevy that you drive. It's the ideology stupid. Of course they were democrats. Conservative Democrats. Today they are Conservative Republicans. BFD. They're still conservative, and that's the problem. There is no such thing as Democrat or Republican ideology or philosophy. There is no philosophy course taught at any university in the world that teaches Democrat or Republican as a philosophy. There is a liberal philosophy rooted in the Enlightenment of John Locke, and a conservative ideology rooted in the Anti-Enlightenment of Edmund Burke. And it's from those conservative ideas of preserving traditional values such as White Supremacy that Jim Crow, Slavery and segregation came from, and ALL of it is conservative. Now...do yourself and everyone else a favor and read a book, so you won't make such a fool of yourself the next time. A political party is nothing more than the policy machine that supports the ideology that drives it. The party does what the ideology tells it to do. Think you can digest that? Or is that too far over your head?
As you the reader can tell, things are heating up.
The author of the Hub now weighs in with: “First, you are a damned liar. Nowhere did I write the foregoing statement. In fact, uttering or writing a statement such as that is not my style.
Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you have some very serious psychological issues to deal with, such as low-self esteem and profound feelings of inadequacy. Proof of that is your pathetic attempts to put me down by calling me such naughty names as "moron" and "stupid ignoramus."
The problem here is that I wasn’t directing my comments at the author. He’s now going after me under the false assumption that I was talking to him. And he adds that I must have low self-esteem and profound feelings of inadequacy and that is proof of something…except of course, that I wasn’t talking to him.
He then adds: “Therefore, I am not one of those foot-shufflin' negroes who is crying in my beer over such realities of the past as slavery and Jim Crow laws. And the reason why I am not that ways is, I am a smart, well-educated, well-read man-of-the-world who accepts that bad sh!t often happens to people -- because life ain't fair.”
“Finally, if you are so concerned about the plight of blacks, why are you living in Vermont, a state in which blacks account for only 1% of the population. Shouldn't you be living in a place like Detroit, East St. Louis, IL, Ferguson, MO, or Watts, CA?”
So…now if I’m so concerned about civil rights, why am I living in Vermont instead of Watts? I suppose that’s supposed to make a difference somehow. I live Vermont because I love the mountains and there’s no traffic, and the people are really nice. They don’t have mountains in Detroit or Watts. And why would any of that make any difference regarding my views on Civil Rights. I was born and raised in Chicago and lived in Virginia for 30 years, and Alabama for 10. I’ve always been an advocate for Civil Rights. The fact that there are so few blacks in Vermont has everything to do with blacks decisions on where to live and not on anything regarding the state. If blacks choose to live in a state that has a lot of snow and cold winters, then come on up. They're more than welcome.
The author responds with this over the top comment: “What are you implying? That the only time blacks are comfortable is when they are living in steamy-hot jungles and the sweltering rain forests in sub-Saharan Africa?”
By now I realize that this person is unhinged. This is going to be interesting.
So I tell him; “You've completely ignored the fact that you called me a damn liar when you are responding to something I was posting to somebody else. What do you have to say about that? Nothing?? No of course not. That would require some honesty which is something you can't deal with.
And this is his resonse: “No, I don't have anything to say about it all. And it is not because I cannot deal with honesty. It is that on various occasions, I am dishonest.”
Well…He’s honest about being dishonest. The Liars Paradox. The person says; Everything I say is a lie. Is he telling the truth? If he is then he’s not lying. But if he’s not lying then he isn’t telling the truth. What we know about this guy, is that he admits that he’s dishonest on various occasions. So, we never know if he’s lying or telling the truth. What I also know is that he wont have anything to say about calling me a liar. That stands knowing that I didn’t lie about anything. So he feels fine about lying about me.
A person posting comments asks the author; “Okay...you're on a mission...what exactly are you going to do about it? What is your game plan? The only thing you can do is vote Republican, or Independent.( He hates Democrats)
Author: “I have a whole arsenal of weapons at my disposal. Just to name a few, I am going to widely distribute three books that I have written about all of the damage that the Democrats and other liberals are doing; I am developing a world-class blog site; I am going to appear on a number of radio and television talk shows, and I am going to hit the lecture circuit (and I am real good looking and an excellent public speaker). : )”
Wow! That’s quite a schedule. I wonder who his agent is? Moreover, I wonder where we can see his books? After all…they were demanding to see mine. I’d like to see evidence that they even exist. He certainly has everything figured out. 3 books that nobody’s read or even seen, a “world class blog site” radio and TV talk shows, and “hitting the lecture circuit”. No doubt William Morris Agency is booking him. After all, he’s real good looking and a great public speaker. And I’m sure nobody will ever challenge a word he says. Because that doesn’t happen in his world. That only happens in the real world.
This is where the rubber meets the road, when it comes to ideological solidarity, and I’ve never encountered anybody, let alone a group of people that would endure the shame of promoting, and even embracing lies and deception of this magnitude at the expense of anything that might resemble self-respect.
The exchange that follows was part of a Hub that’s premise was this: “The Fact That Atheists Believe That GOD Does Not Exist Is Solid Proof That HE Does Exist”
The premise of the Hub is flawed on several levels. The most obvious one is what is the authority he has to make that statement? Is he an atheist? No. He’s a theist. So how can he speak authoritatively on what an atheist “believes”, especially since they don’t hold belief’s. (There seems to be an overwhelming need to tell people what other people “believe”.) They rely on facts that correspond to reality. Truth, is that which corresponds to fact. But more problematic is that he says that the “The Fact That Atheists Believe That GOD Does Not Exist Is Solid Proof That HE Does Exist”. That’s a false premise. It’s not a logically sound statement. It’s not a FACT that atheists DO believe that God does Not Exist. It’s that they DON’T believe that he Does exist. And there is a huge difference in those two concepts. The statement he makes would mean that atheists think that you can prove a negative. You can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove that something doesn’t exist…someplace in the universe. Maybe God exists in some far off corner of the universe that we can never explore. Maybe purple unicorns live in some far off galaxy. You can’t search every nook and cranny of the cosmos looking for God in order to prove that he’s not there. You can prove that there are no socks in your drawer, but the drawer is a finite space. You can examine that space for material evidence of socks and if they aren’t there, you can conclude that you have proven that socks do not exist in that drawer at this time. But you have not proven that socks don’t exist. Atheist don’t believe that he Does exist in the first place. The author is telling us that atheist “believe” that a God that they don’t believe in doesn’t exist. But atheists don’t know that, much less believe it. They simply see no evidence that he does. There is no such thing as evidence of non-existence. We can’t conceive of non-existence. We can’t imagine what that is, because we have only existence as a reference point. And atheists have no interest in trying to prove a negative. They see no evidence that a God exists. But absence of evidence does not prove evidence of absence. Hence there is no FACT as the author states that the atheist believes that God does not exist. He doesn’t rest on belief, and he can’t prove a negative. He doesn’t believe that he does.
The author’s argument rests on a false premise. Anytime we see a person make the claim that he has “proven” some theory, a red flag should be waving in our face. We can’t prove our theories are true. Attempting to prove a theory requires inductive reasoning. We look for things that validate what we believe to be true. But inductive reasoning never proves a theory. Induction moves from the specific, to the general. It offers at best a generalization. But a generality is not proof of anything. It’s the All Swans are White argument. We think that because every swan we’ve ever seen is white, the next swan is absolutely going to be white. Except that we’ve found black swans in Australia. You never know if the next thing you see will disprove what you believed to be a fact.
We can however disprove a theory. Einstein once famously said that all of the greatest minds put together will never prove my theories are true. It only takes one to prove them false. We don’t look to validate our theories. We look to falsify them. We do that through deductive reasoning. It’s a subtractive process. We can create a logical deductive syllogism to test our theory. If the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true.
P1. All men are mortal
P2. Author is a man
C: therefore, author is mortal
A syllogism can have any number of premises.
If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
P1. Atheists believe that God does not exist
C: Therefore, God exists.
Clearly there is a problem with this.
First: It isn’t a Fact that Atheists don’t believe that God does Not exist. They don’t believe that he DOES exist. The Fact is that atheists don’t operate from belief. They rely on facts. And that’s one of them.
Second: Whatever atheists believe or don’t believe has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Gods existence isn’t dependent on what atheists believe or don’t believe.
As a general rule, critical thinking involves developing some emotional and intellectual distance between yourself and ideas - whether your own or others' - in order to better evaluate their truth, validity, and reasonableness.
In the process of critical thinking, ( which seems to be the enemy of ideology ) there are some ‘rules of thumb’ that you should apply whenever you can do so in a way that remains faithful to the arguer’s apparent meaning: 1 Where appropriate, rewrite sentences as either conditional or disjunctive sentences of one of the following forms: If A then B. If not-A then not-B.
Consider the following argument...
•"If you have a current password, then you can log on to the network"
•"You have a current password"
•"You can log on to the network"
IF/Then. It’s called a conditional.
This has the form:
p→q ( If p, Then q)
∴ (therefore) q
The law of contrapositive states that, in a conditional, if the conclusion is false, then the hypothesis must be false also. The general form (Modus Tollens) is the following:
1.P → Q. ( IF P, THEN Q)
2.~Q. ( NOT Q)
3.Therefore we can conclude ~P. ( not P)
The following are examples:
1.If it is raining, then there are clouds in the sky.
2.There are no clouds in the sky.
3.Thus, it is not raining.
We can put the premise of the Authors Hub in Modus Tolens form
1.IF Atheists Believe That GOD Does Not Exist, Then it Is Solid Proof That HE Does Exist”
2. there is no solid proof that God exists
3. Thus atheists do Not believe that God does not exist
The premise of the Authors Hub is this: ““The Fact That Atheists Believe That GOD Does Not Exist Is Solid Proof That HE Does Exist”
The author of this Hub has based the entire content on a false premise. I tried to point that out to him, and the blowback I received for pointing that out, was on a scale, the likes of which I’d never seen before. My character, was smeared, and I was called a liar, and a racist trying to Lynch the author. One other person commenting on this false Hub also experienced the same treatment. Both of us asked questions to not only the author of this Hub, but of his supporters and all of them fired back with venom and as much vitriol as they could muster. The Hub was not to be questioned or challenged in any way. To do so would brand you as a racist, or worse… A “liberal”. In the world that I live in, all ideas are open to criticism. We try to determine what is true from what is false. We try to eliminate falsehoods so that we get a more clear view of what truth looks like.
Conservatives, at least the ones that I encounter hate this process. When it’s applied I’m constantly accused of not knowing what I’m talking about, OR more often that I’m attempting to disguise or use some liberal “mumbo jumbo” to justify hating conservatives and trying to make them look stupid. They generally don’t seem to like logic and detest Critical thinking and hate having their ideas challenged. As for making them look stupid, they seem to manage doing that really well without any help from me.
But the extent that they’ll go to, in order to protect the ideology is pretty amazing. These are what we call Identity Philosophers. They may say that ‘truth’ is meaningful and that it means correspondence to the facts. They may even acknowledge the existence of foolproof criteria by which to determine whether or not a statement is true. But they believe, and this is what makes them identity philosophers, that they owe their primary allegiance to some group to which they belong. The thrust of their attack against truth is not that we cannot know what is true. It is that truth is but one value amongst many, and not the one that counts most for building a just society. They believe that when it comes to a choice between truth and solidarity, it is solidarity that counts—so that we are not merely justified in misrepresenting the truth, but that it may actually be our duty to do so if the solidarity of our community hangs in the balance. But no one, I hope, would accuse identity philosophers of tolerating or respecting the views of others. As you’ll see for yourself in the following exchange.
At this point the magnitude of the hostility had boiled over. The topic of the Hub was no longer even a matter of discussion because all attempts to question what was written had been deflected and diverted into unrelated personal attacks on those questioning the author. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the source was ignored.
Author: "Will, I am going to follow your advice, my friend. I'm through with all of this."
Me: Look at your own words if you can. It begins with your tough macho bullshit warnings to Link.
“Link: I said what I said about “busting up” people because I am quite capable of doing that.” So you were not here to witness the ways in which I brought individuals down when they came after me – like you are doing now. So, by not getting into an exchange with you, I am doing you a favor. I am saving you from being humiliated in front of hundreds of people.”
Me: '---Really. Is that before or after you said this: "amine, thank you for coming to my defense. And it appears that we are putting together a super team against adagio and link. "
So you need to hide behind amine. Help me. Oh help me. Tough talk man. Real macho shit there.
(Oh… Help amine. Help me. Link and Adagio are lynching me with logic. Yeah I said it. Lynching. That's exactly what they're doing to me.)
Think that sounds far-fetched? Nope sounds just like Feenix; because these you’re your own words:
Author: “Help, help, help! I'm under siege. I have been doing everything I can to get away from this one-man lynch mob, but it keeps right on chasing me. “Right now, I'm struggling to make my way through a dense swamp while wearing badly-tattered clothing and sweating profusely.”
Me: god man, pull yourself together. It’s humiliating. Tough guy huh. Yeah a real bully attitude. And this is what you look like when anybody challenges you.
Author: "It is just that there are two individuals who are responding to a couple of my hubs who are not looking to "dialogue." They're looking for a fight."
And you say that when you post this shit out of the clear blue with no reference to anything being said in current time, you offer this: “adagio, I will be straight up with you. You are bitter, very lonely and badly in need of some ...(some what Feenix? Cat got your tongue? ) Are there any houses of the Rising Sun in the People's Republic of Vermont? Ahh. A whore house. You’re suggesting that I need to get laid? Really. You just toss that out there. And you follow it up with this: “adagio, you are very envious of me, aren't you. Well, please, don't hate me because I'm beautiful.” . And you say that I’m looking for a fight? No. Feenix. I cleaned your clock a long time ago, to the point where you were begging for mercy. But you are, (looking for a fight) and now you have it, you whining sniveling cry baby. If you can’t handle this, how could you survive the Bush? (he brings up his heroic Viet Nam experience saving atheists who cried out for God to help them)
So No Feenix. We aren’t looking for a fight. We're just looking for some answers. And you don't like being challenged or having your bullshit critiqued.
I find this pretty remarkable, even for you: Author: "By always trying to shoot me down, you are exposing yourself for the WHITE RACIST you are. And yeah, you're damned straight I'm playing the "race card" on you, and I will do it again in the future."
Me: Any critique or challenge to your bullshit is me being a racist, and you plan on using the Race Card in the future. And you think that this has given you credibility in some way? What a pathetic creature you are. Don't you have even the least bit of class or dignity than to pull that on me, or anyone??
Author: "adagio, the reason why you keep right on harassing me is, I am black." "By always trying to shoot me down, you are exposing yourself for the WHITE RACIST you are."
Me: Right. It couldn't have anything to do with the stupid Hub of yours and your inability to respond intelligently to any criticism of it could it? Nahhh.. that couldn't be it. It's because I'm a "white racist' and I sit at the computer with my robes and pointy hat trying to take down this uppity Black man. It couldn't have anything at all to do with the content of his Hub. Nope. Not possible.
So that must it. You're supposed to get a pass for making stupid comments because… you're black? lmao...you're pretty desperate aren't you? And right on cue you offer this:
Author:""I'm getting real desperate! --- ( LMAO yes...Yes you are )
No matter what I do, I can't shake this lynch mob. It just keeps right on coming after me. "Your long comments to me are nothing more than the noose that you are trying to tighten around my neck so you can string me up and strangle the like out of me."
Me: Is that right? You must mean in a figurative sense. Wow...I thought you said you could handle yourself in these debates. I could have sworn you told Link something to that effect.
Author: HUBPAGES MODERATORS, PLEASE GET ADAGIO4639 & LINK10103 OFF MY BACK. THOSE TWO ARE STALKING AND HARASSING ME. THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO MAKE MY EXPERIENCE ON THIS SITE MISERABLE.
Aww poor baby. does he have a boo boo? Is it too hot in the Hot Hub? Did he write some shit that a couple of people found full of holes and now he can’t handle the challenge to his Egotistical bullshit?
So.. the militant, the War Vet, commissioned officer no less. Author of 3 (count em if you can find em) three as yet unpublished books of unknown length or subject matter, the guy that tells Link; “watch out dude; I’m a BAD man. “: I said what I said about "busting up" people because I am quite capable of doing that." " … Pretty tough talk from a wimp. I’d say don’t worry about Link, Feenix, he can handle what you have to offer. Now, that’s a lot of tough talk from a guy pleading for help from his disciples, from the Hub Page moderators (who haven’t bothered to get involved) who tells us he’ll play the race card to get me to stop challenging him. Calls me a racist…for challenging him. I mean look at your own words. You’re a friggin cry baby, who simply cannot defend his own shit. Help me, help me. The racist white guy Adagio is Lynching me...with logic and critical thinking. I don’t have those skills. I’m screwed. Help …Help..Help. You can’t defend yourself. How pathetic can you get?
Yeah..Feenix. You were through a long, long time ago. It just took you this long to figure it out.
Aristotle presented the principle or law of Non-contradiction. Aristotle! That’s a long freakin time ago. According to Aristotle, the principle of non-contradiction is a principle of scientific inquiry, reasoning and communication that we cannot do without. It states that It is impossible to hold (suppose) the same thing to be and not to be at the same time. You can’t hold two opposing and contradictory positions at the same time. You can’t be here, and not be here at the same time. In your case, and this is why you fall on your face…You cannot be a tough guy warning Link, or anyone for that matter, that you’ve been "busting up" people because I am quite capable of doing that." "….and be the very same person that is crying to the moderators or anyone else that will listen, for help in dealing with me or Link for “coming after you”, because you are so capable of doing that “busting up. In words that even you should understand; You can’t be a tough guy and a crybaby at the same time. They are contradictory. And that is what it is that condemns your every word. You’re a walking talking contradictory logical mess. Good luck with that. Let us know when your books finally get published.
Finally, the author deleted all of my comments ; as well as the other person that finds that logic and reason and some critical thinking are what is needed today.
What I found really striking with this experience was how many people bought into this Hub and defended this guy even when he and a few others were exposed demonstrably as liars willing to deny the truth which was falsifiable and determined as accurate (One of the people commenting, grudgingly admitted that after examining for herself that what I had said about having published two books and three CD’s was in FACT the truth) using every effort they could come up with to preserve the ideology of the premise for the Hub. That had to be INFALLIBLY true in their minds.
I’m a fallibalist. I know that I could be wrong about a host of things. That’s why I direct my criticism at myself all the time. I don’t feel I need to be right about everything, but I’d rather not be wrong if I can avoid it. As a fallible human I’m prone to error like all of us. When I find that error, I correct it, and learn from it, and grow from that.
The framework I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, decisions, and basic philosophical position, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. I have no qualms about putting my own ideas up to criticism. I recognize the fallibility of human beings. Nobody owns the Truth, including me. So, knowing that I could be wrong, I’m not attempting to defend anything irrationally, by sacrificing the truth for the sake of an ideology based on a logical fallacy. I hold all ideas, including my own up to severe criticism.
The author of that Hub most certainly is not of that framework, and would NEVER be able to make that claim.
I suppose this could trigger a Hub Pages war between myself and a few of those that believe that irrational commitment to an ideology, and solidarity with those sharing that kind of thinking is important. But having logic, and reason as my weapons of choice I'm confident in the outcome.