(...) if you read [JFK's] speech at Rice, all his arguments for going to the moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering penis-shaped obelisk on Mars.The quote is a mouse-over in Munroe's equally brilliant cartoon. It's probably the best (and definitely funniest) example of a fallacy that is ubiquitous in all debates, public or private: refusal to take responsibility for logical consequences of one's own beliefs. If you claim that A, and if it can be shown that A implies B, then you are also claiming that B, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to claim that B, that you disagree with B, or whatever. If you don't like the consequences of your beliefs that have been shown to you, your only logically valid line of defense is trying to show that the consequences you don't like do not really follow; you are not allowed to just say "But I've never said that." For example, I think that if you're saying it's wrong to discriminate based on race, you're also saying that it's wrong to protect American jobs from foreign competition; and if you're saying that manufacturers should have legal power to set asking prices of the goods they manufacture, you're also saying that Amazon.com does not provide any useful services. If you don't like these conclusions, you have to either attempt to show they do not follow from your premises, or else rethink those premises.
If xkcd is right and JFK's arguments for sending people to the moon are equally good as arguments for sending cloned dinosaurs into space, then JFK was indeed in favor of sending cloned dinosaurs into space, whether he realized it or not.
Still, there's something politically advantageous to this sort of thing, though I can't seem to put my finger on it right now.
ReplyDeleteHahaha, no, but there's something about a line of reasoning that justifies many random acts instead of a singular logical extension that also allows audience members to implicitly justify their own ideas/objectives and potentially get behind the speaker/politician without knowing it.
ReplyDeleteYes, that's what I was saying, but in a convoluted way run-on type way.
ReplyDelete