Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!tedrick From: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion,net.sci Subject: Re: Hitler: Why we need a Science of Morality Message-ID: <13688@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Thu, 8-May-86 04:05:03 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13688 Posted: Thu May 8 04:05:03 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 10-May-86 07:07:36 EDT References: <559@bu-cs.UUCP> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 118 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:5286 net.religion:10100 net.sci:818 >Yes, the Nazis subverted logic, science for their own evil purposes. >Although they perhaps used a veneer of technologism (!?!?) to rationalize >and implement their madness, ultimately it was sheer power and terror >that carried them to their thrones. It was also propaganda, lies, manipulation of the masses using deceit. Should we debate the truth of that statement? If we accept it as true, then I ask: how is one to guard against being manipulated by propaganda? I claim logic is vital, as it allows one to analyze arguments and root out fallacies. How are we to stop the masses from being manipulated by demagogues? I claim "logic for the masses" would at least make it more difficult for demagogues to control the masses. >As usual, Hitler remains the bad example, useable for any purpose, for >any side of an argument. NO! Not useable for any purpose. I claim lack of logic was the FUNDAMENTAL flaw in his personality. I claim deficient logic was the FUNDAMENTAL problem which allowed National Socialism to flourish. This conclusion is the result of 20 years of study and thought on my part. I hope you will not take it lightly. >I believe somewhere here we straddle the logic of science, what is >good science and the authority of science. For example, I am fully >convinced the authority of Science is leading us, like the pied-piper >of legend, to almost certain doom with their nuclear madness. Can we blame logic for this? Who forced us to create atomic weapons by his efforts to create his own? (Hint: his initials were A.H. Want references?) Is it not logic that compels us to question the road we are taking? Is it not lack of logic that prevents world leaders from cooperating to stop this insane competition that may lead to utter catastrophe? >Is this logic? I call it madness, not logic. >They use logic, consider: After the Chernobyl disaster I heard an interview >with a 'nuclear scientist', the issue of the Hanford, WA plant (which >apparently is very similar in design to the Chernobyl plant) came up. >He said, "but that is irrelevant to the commercial nuclear power industry, >that is not a commercial plant..." YOU are the one using logic. I see no logic in the "scientist's" statement. >(I was *so* gratified when the interviewer >snapped back "that won't make much difference to the residents of the area >of the plant blows"...it was so satisfying to see an honest, uncalculated >reaction on tv.) Not to mention straightforward and logical. >Is this not logic in the service of madness? It is *SOPHISTRY* in the service of madness. It is *LOGIC* which we use to *REFUTE* sophistry. >Whether or not the Hanford >plant presents a danger, is that argument not "logical", but flawed? No, it is *ILLOGICAL SOPHISTRY*. Logic was invented by Aristotle primarily to *REFUTE SOPHISTRY*. I think you have gotten the two (logic & sophistry) confused. >Unfortunately logic rests on facts from which to draw conclusions, What? That presents no problem at all. If you aren't convinced that the premises are true, you don't even have to analyze the argument to refuse to accept the conclusion. It is only when confronted with tricky reasoning that starts from premises which you accept that you have to worry about refuting the argument through analyzing its logic. >there is no way even the most educated populace can begin to assimilate >the necessary facts from which to draw logical conclusions (such as >become expert in nuclear power plant design.) So reject everything that you don't know is true. Or, if you are not a philosopher, at least be aware that you are operating under assumptions which may or may not be true. Don't be misled by the "experts" into blindly accepting as true that which is unproven. >I think the resolution is, logic may be necessary, but it is by no >means sufficient. Sure. No argument with that!