Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!bbnccv!ISM780B!jim From: jim@ISM780B.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Factophobia Message-ID: <39000031@ISM780B.UUCP> Date: Mon, 25-Nov-85 08:06:00 EST Article-I.D.: ISM780B.39000031 Posted: Mon Nov 25 08:06:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 29-Nov-85 22:12:57 EST References: <7800718@inmet.UUCP> Lines: 70 Nf-ID: #R:inmet:7800718:ISM780B:39000031:000:3690 Nf-From: ISM780B!jim Nov 25 08:06:00 1985 >One of my opponents has recently made a contribution to logic by >inventing a useful term: namely, "implied non-sequitur". This is >paradoxical: non-sequitur means a conclusion that does not follow >from premise. "Implied* means that it does. Jan, you are not being straightforward. First off, the term Mike Huybensz used was "*suggested* non-sequitur". As you well know, the *suggestion* that Reagan was responsible for an improved job market for women was present, not exactly subtly, in your title "Equality through Reaganomics ?" and in the quote, published in the National Review, which is known to support Reagan's economic policies, used the phrase "Since the dreaded Mr. Reagan came to power in 1980,". The sarcastic term, plus the fact that Reagan was mentioned at all, was obviously *intended* to *suggest* that Reaganomics was responsible. You won't embarrass yourself by denying it, will you? Now, it *does not follow* just from the quotation that Reaganomics was responsible, or that women benefited, or that the women's jobs are comparable to men's. Yet you explicitly suggested *equality* and *Reaganomics*, the editors of the National Review explicitly referred to *Reagan's power* and through their bias and sarcasm obviously were suggesting that the change was *beneficial*, and you yourself in a later article offered the *"obvious"* "inductive conjecture" that "Business deregulation may be better for equal opportunity than affirmative action". >It goes like this: you give him a bare fact, no conclusion. He >draws a conclusion himself, and does not like it, because it is >politically incorrect. He decides the conclusion must be a non- >sequitur. He wants to blame you as the cause of it all, but you >didn't draw the conclusion ! Hence, it becomes "implied non- >sequitur". Can you say "disingenuous"? I thought you could. >This invention allows one to reject *facts*, not as being factu- >ally wrong, but as liable to lead weak brethren to bad conclusions. No one has rejected the facts. But facts are plentiful. It is the *context* in which the facts were presented which is rejected. I will accept facts accompanied by objective analysis. Without that, your presentations of fact are simply propaganda, which always has a factual core. Like so many, you use facts as you can to support a position you already hold. But a proper use of facts should constantly *modify* one's position. One's view of the world should *flow* from the facts encountered. The question should not be "Does this fact support my position?" but rather "What does this fact tell me about the world?". The article quoted contained several different statistical and historical facts, but it also contained much non-factual material. The selection of facts, the way they are phrased, and the way they are organized are all non-factual. The use of a word like "dreaded" as satire is completely non-factual, as is labeling as in "Reaganomics and Equality ?". Your thesis of free-standing fact, with no conclusions implied, is the corrupt offering of the disinformationist. Madison Avenue's greatest asset is people's belief that they are not affected by advertising. Do these "facts" look familiar: Mom vs. Pop? The following is from "Santa Cruz Gayzette", quoted in "Ms." May 1, page 69: Since our beloved Ronald Reagan took the throne in 1980, a period that has seen an extraordinary growth in the service sector, the job factory has opened up 7,067,000 new slots, with women taking 5,540,000, or 78.4 per cent of the toil. However, they have only been able to capture about 65 per cent of the wage and salary growth. -- Jim Balter (ima!jim)