On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
One of the unfortunate patterns infecting modern discourse to an ever-increasing degree is an overabundance of fallacious argumentation. Out of all of them however, perhaps the most pervasive is the appeal to authority (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) by not a few people in their presumed "reasoning" and/or self-styled "methodologies." This has been a subject raised by your host at sundry times and in diverse manners in years gone by -though in virtually all cases said responses were to fallacious forms of this common appeal in argumentation in "real time" if you will. The purpose of this posting is a more general examination of the matter to hopefully assist readers in the area of rational cultivation.
Unfortunately, too often people who involve themselves in fallacious forms of argumentation respond to criticisms of their errors factually, prepositionally, or otherwise by claiming that their critics are disparaging any and all appeals to authority. This even happened recently to your host where a critic made this assertion -one which our history more than amply demonstrates is no small misrepresentation. To wit:
One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 27, 2004)]
In other words, the present writer has not failed to recognize that there are valid appeals to authority -indeed that anyone could claim that he has not only shows the degree to which certain critics do not bother reading what your host has written before attempting to "refute" him.{1} The purpose of this posting is to set out in as brief a form as possible{2} the difference between a valid and invalid appeal to authority. But before that can be done, a focus must be made on the word "fallacy" and the related term "fallacious" and pinpointing what it is precisely that makes an argument fallacious,a particular approach a "fallacy" and in essence, invalid.
In setting forth a thesis{3} to be defended in the form of a hypothesis{4}, the present writer asks the reader to consider what is about to be said on the matter of the merits of the arguments presented and nothing else. This is requested because what is about to be said is not to be presumed as true or false merely on the present writer's assertion that it is so but instead by objective criteria. Having noted that, consider the following thesis as the proposition which the balance of this posting intends to propose:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
In other words, a fallacy means the argument fails for some intrinsic reason pertaining to the reason and logic involved in its composition. When dealing with an appeal to authority, there is no fallacy if there is a reasoned argument set forth which cites for support of the conclusion reached by rational argumentation the opinion of an authority or authorities. However, responding to a reasoned and logical argument with citations of presumed "authorities" and sources where actual arguments interacting with the hypothesis or theory of another have not been made is intrinsically fallacious.
Now surely, anyone with a normal, intact, functioning brain can see the distinction being made here as being both logical as well as simple common-sense. It provides if you will for a rational explanation for what constitutes a fallacy of argument and does this by objective manifestation and not mere subjective opinion. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who claim to have much higher than average intelligence who involve themselves in this exact form of fallacious argumentum ad vericundiam. Having noted the distinction between valid and invalid appeals to authority, the next point to be considered is what makes an argument erroneous objectively speaking.
Notice if you will what is not being asked here. The present writer is not asking what makes a person think an argument is erroneous but instead what makes it erroneous irrespective of what individuals subjectively think on the matter. Your host has asserted over the years that any approach that does not interact with the argument on its merits or lack thereof as determined by objective criteria is the correct point of focus here for pinpointing a fallacy. To summarize that principle in a nutshell:
--Only the data comprising an argument --either in its favour or in opposition to it on the merits of the arguments itself-- is what determines validity or lack thereof to an argument, nothing else does.
In other words, anything added to the mix of a personal nature does not change the validity or invalidity of the argument itself if the latter is interacted with on its merits. This will be noted later on in another posting when discussing valid and invalid forms of what is commonly called the ad hominem approach to argumentation{5} but if sufficed to mention it briefly at the present time; ergo that is what was done.
As your host has made this assertion numerous times over the years in a variety of manifestations (including HERE and HERE), some have responded to these and other such assertions by seeking to posit a dichotomy between actual arguments and logical fallacies when the subject of argumentation fallacies is brought into the mix. The problem with such an approach is that logic itself is an exact, specific discipline and it involves the study of propositions and the use of said propositions in argumentation. And as actual arguments utilize to some extent reason and logic (however well), any attempted separation here is part and parcel of what is called a false dichotomy.
The reason such a separation is not valid is again because strictly speaking logical fallacies involve patterns of reasoning which are wrong on the basis of structural flaws in the argument. Structural flaws which render an argument invalid are called "argumentation fallacies." And as argumentation fallacies are various structural flaws in arguments, whereas logical fallacies involve patterns of reasoning based on demonstrative structural flaws,{6} this is why the attempt to separate the two as if they can be actually separated is an example of a false dichotomy: another fallacy of argumentation by the way but to detail it would to get offtrack from the purpose of the present posting.
The reason all of this has been outlined in the manner above is because there have been some critics who think they can respond to a cogently argued hypothesis --or even worse, presume to do so with an established theory{7} or point of reference{8}-- with a bunch of references to the opinions or conclusions of presumed "authorities" on a matter as if that is a valid methodology or credible counter-argument. And sometimes these people have tried to appropriate for their own arguments made by presumed "authorities" as if that suffices to avoid a fallacious appeal to authority. But none of this actually escapes fallacious argumentum ad vericundiam for reasons soon to be noted.
Before dealing with the latter point though, it suffices to note at the outset when the latter methodology is validly utilized. In truth, there are two situations and they are as follows:
--In response to a proposition that a particular source does not say something.
--As supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation.
In the first instance, while an actual argument is preferable, strictly speaking no actual argument by the responding party is needed because appeal can be made to the source itself. For example, if someone were to argue that "Adolph Hitler never thought badly of Jews", there is no need to respond to that assertion with an argument of one's own.{9} Instead, citing in context Hitler's own words where his contempt for Jews was more than sufficiently made clear would suffice to dispatch with such an assertion as non-viable for anyone with a semblance of intellectual integrity.
In the second instance, an actual argument is required to avoid a fallacious appeal to the authority being cited because otherwise there is no real argument being made. If (for example) someone says that World War II was a just war and makes a rigorous case for their assertion and a critic ignores their argument and says "I disagree because historian Mr. X says it was unjust", that is a fallacious appeal to authority. If said persons said that and then tried to appropriate arguments from Mr. X., the argument while valid would only be as strong as the arguments advanced by Mr. X.
Of course, if Mr. X's arguments are shot to pieces, the argument fails and must either be revised or discarded. And it should go without saying that if the response to a discredited argument is to reiterate the discredited argument and appeal to the authority making it and their presumed "authoritative credentials", then once again the person so arguing commits an objective manifestation of the fallacy of ad vericundiam irrespective of what their subjective intentions on the matter may or may not be.{10}
Some have gone further than this and sought to claim that there can be a logical or argumentation fallacy based on what is claimed to be a person's faulty premise. Now it is certainly true that this is possible but an accusation of a faulty premise requires demonstration by objective criteria.{11} And when people claim a faulty premise based on some unverifiable outside criteria or otherwise refuse to prove their assertion by rational argument, there is another fallacy of argumentation intrinsically taking place{12}. The present writer explained two possible reasons for an impasse in understanding --presuming for a moment no ill-will on the part of either party involved:
One reason could be because they cannot be reasoned with. Another though can be due to the person confusing reality with their intentions. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 27, 2007)]
The above excerpt is from a longer thread dealing with the difference between objective manifestation and subjective intention: another important-yet-often-overlooked factor in the equation. The point in a nutshell is that allowances can be made for what someone says their intentions were as the present writer has noted before.{13} But even that allowance does not detract from what said person objectively manifests.
While more could be noted on these matters and may well be in the future{14}, hopefully what is outlined above is adequate to (i) explain the important distinction between a valid and an invalid appeal to authority, (ii) more than adequately sustain the hypothesis the present writer noted was the main intention of this posting, and (iii) in some small fashion contribute to an improvement in public discourse and the use of reason and logic by those who have read this thread and reflect on what is written above.
[Update: For a dialogue on (and some criticisms of) this post from a friend, see the thread posted here. -ISM 3/27/07 2:15pm]
Notes:
{1} Without mentioning any names, your host can think of many people who think they know how to dialogue but who appear to evince no familiarity whatsoever at times with those two key elements of authentic dialogue. Listening does not mean scanning the words of someone to immediately throw together a half-baked (if even that) "response" which demonstrates that you did not bother to take in what they actually said. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 9, 2006)]
{2} And in a different fashion than this subject has been dealt with in the past.
{3} Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{4} Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa August 22, 2006)]
{5} Your host is not sure when this one will be worked on but some of what is in this posting and the one distinguishing between objective manifestation and subjective intention circa last month will be presupposed when that subject is dealt with.
{6} [L]ogical fallacy - a fallacy in logical argumentation. [Excerpt from The Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus Defining the Term Logical Fallacy]
{7} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action." [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{8} A hypothesis in other words is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination, testing, etc. for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the flaws in potentia (but by no means the only ones) are errors of fact, errors in logic, formal contradiction, etc. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. A theory is therefore defined as follows:
Theory: A set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 17, 2007)]
{9} Obviously one can if they want to but it is in this instance strictly speaking not necessary.
{10} The reason for this should be obvious: the argument itself does not withstand scrutiny so appealing to the presumed "credentials" of the person making the debunked argument does not rehabilitate said argument. Ergo, unless the argument itself is revised or replaced by one that is viable, the further appeal to the presumed "authority" at that point is fallacious and therefore invalid methodologically. Period.
{11} [A] refutation or confutation of an argument must involve objective proof by rational argumentation that said theories or viewpoints or assertions are false or otherwise erroneous. Many who write self-styled "refutations" make references to what they believe to be a refutation or some equivalent which is actually an out of context injunction on their part and properly classified as normative argumentation and thus subjective. This will never do because a refutation properly speaking is non-normative and requires therefore objective criteria for being able to be accurately assessed as to its veracity or lack thereof. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 17, 2006)]
{12} [H]ysteron proteron - The logical fallacy of assuming as true and using as a premise a proposition that is yet to be proved. [Excerpt from The Free Online Dictionary and Thesaurus Defining the Term Hysteron Proteron]
It should go without saying that the kind of "proof" which would be used in proving a given premise to be correct would be by objective manifestation or by non-normative criteria and not subjective intention or what is properly classified as normative.
{13} Most recently here:
Points to Ponder on Some Limits of Reason and Logic (circa February 5, 2007)
{14} As your host may be inclined by circumstances or whatever to revisit this subject again at a later date.
Monday, March 05, 2007
More on Creation and Understanding Genesis:
(Responding to a Reluctant Atheist)
My interlocuter's words will be in shale coloured font.
Shawn,
In your blog on Saturday, February 17, 2007 you wrote in response to a letter from a Creationist:
"I would suggest that you be a lot more cautious in your attempts to dismiss the theories of evolution and a lot less blindly accepting of the contradictory, factually-challenged pseudo "science" of the Creationist crowd. We are not fundamentalists XXXXX and do not accept the Bible as a science text."
But Catholics do accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
Yes but the two are not ipso facto synonymous. As Venerable Cardinal Caesar Baronius around 1598 noted "[t]he Bible is given to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." St. Augustine similarly noted twelve hundred years before him that "[o]ne does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send the Paraclete who will teach you the course of the sun and moon.' For he willed to make them Christians not mathematicians." St. Augustine's teacher St. Ambrose asserted that "[t]o discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come." In other words, the Bible was given with a certain intention in mind and throughout Christian history, that view has been reiterated by the Church's most learned theologians.
Now it is true that some of them did espouse a literal view on these matters back when there was no scientific evidence to contradict it, the overall attitude taken was one akin to what is noted above by St. Augustine and St. Ambrose: recognition that matters of science and mathematics were not what the Scriptures were intended to convey. This is not difficult to demonstrate and it further erodes the notion that the church even from its earliest days read Genesis as the so-called "creationists" are doing. Consider for example the following written over a thousand years before the existence of the telescope:
Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of "spiritual light" in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context...
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
None of what Augustine recommends coheres with the approach to Genesis that you have taken. And as this was a thousand years before the invention of the telescope, you cannot credibly claim th at this attitude was taken as some feeble attempt to defend ancient understandings from modern science or something along those lines.
The same God who created the world also wrote the Bible. So when the Author of the Bible writes about how the world was created we have to assume that He knows what He is talking about.
There is no shortage of people who attempt to interpret the Bible through an empiricist framework as if the texts are all of the same genre, all of the same styling, and all to be viewed as literal history. Ask yourself for a moment this question:
If it is not difficult to misunderstand contemporaries when we use the same languages and (presumably) have many of the same fundamentals of understanding, why should one presume that ancient writings millennial in age would somehow be easier to correctly understand???
The truth is, the Semitic people of the ancient east did not conceive of history as we do and wrote with a variety of literary genres much as we do today. This is something that I am amazed is so often not considered by not a few people who attempt to write on these matters.
Yet it is clear that whoever wrote the creation story in Genesis doesn't know what he is talking about.
Again, only if you are interpreting the creation account as an emperical literal history. If this was not the author's intention, then can you not see how your argument from this point onward is constructed on a faulty premise??? You have to consider among other things the times the texts were written in, the intention of the authors, and how they would use figures etc. in a matter that would resonate with the understanding of the people of a given epoch. (I say it that way as the various books of the Bible were written at different times and with different intentions of the author in mind.)
So the credibility of the Bible is destroyed.
The credibility of the Bible is no more destroyed in such an example than the episodes of Star Trek would be if someone two thousand years from now tried to pass them off as "literal history" rather than try to assess what genre the writing is in. In the case of Star Trek, it is "science fiction", in the case of Genesis, the first three chapters contain an allegorical account which in the understanding of the monotheistic religions conveys essential truths without error.
To understand what a written text means, it makes sense to consider what the authormay or may not have intended does it not??? But rather than do that, the common approach of the modern atheist or agnostic is to subject the ancient texts to "enlightenment" principles including viewing every phrase in a crassly literal sense. Then they claim the Bible is "false" when they have not bothered to try and ascertain whether or not the methodology then employ --which in some cases is undoubtedly valid-- is not itself misapplied in this instance.
Creationists understand this. They understand what is at stake, which is why they try to find scientific facts to bolster the creation story.
They err in presuming that the creation story was intended to be read as literal history ala the sorts of histories we compile today.
Yes, they twist science to fit the Bible, but aren't you guilty of the same thing, Shawn, only in reverse? Aren't you twisting the Bible to fit science?
Since I do not consider the Bible to be a science book to begin with, how can I be doing this???
You criticize Creationists for not "accepting the (scientific) evidences for what they are and adjusting their interpretation of the (Biblical) text accordingly." But that approach results in a dishonest reading of the Bible. Six days doesn't really mean six days, forming man from the dust of the earth doesn't really mean that man was formed from the dust of the earth, creating trees before creating the sun doesn't really mean that trees were created before the sun. Your approach is intellectually dishonest. The Bible can never be proven wrong because its words have no fixed meaning.
Again, have you taken any time whatsoever to consider the situation of literary genres in writing??? If you are familiar with Hebrew at all, the word translated as "day" has several interpretations as to a length of time. There are various usages throughout the Bible including various usages in Genesis itself. Again, if you do not try to focus on what the intention of the writer was, misunderstanding is not only likely but to be expected.
As recently as the period of the high scholastics (13th century), a process of interpretation of the Bible was codified which was called the "four senses of Scripture." (Literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.) It was not a novelty or an innovation at the time of interpretive methodology but instead was a summing up of the various ancient ways that were utilized by the Fathers and Doctors prior to their time under one heading essentially. (I gave you an example of Augustine taking this approach above.) This was all done centuries prior to the whole Galileo incident (yes, I know where this is going) so I cannot be intellectually dishonest in referring to it here.
As a Catholic you will say that we cannot rely on our own private interpretation of the Bible but, instead, we must defer to the Church's role as the Bible's infallible interpreter. As a cradle Catholic I would agree. Unfortunately, the Church has failed to live up to that role.
Here it comes...
In one fell swoop the Galileo affair destroyed both the credibility of the Bible as the inerrant word of God and the Catholic Church as the Bible's infallible interpreter:
Of course since the Church had no problem with heliocentrism proposed in various hypotheses before Galileo was even born, this is a fact seriously undermining the common account of this matter. Need I remind you of Nicolaus Copernicus??? He died twenty years before Galileo was even born. He formulated the first heliocentric scientific hypothesis. His hypothesis was tested in private and eventually delivered by Cardinal Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (papal Secretary State for Pope Clement VII and Pope Paul III) before prelates in Rome including several high ranking cardinals and Pope Clement VII in 1533. This was a hundred years before Galileo's sentencing and thirty-one years before Galileo was born!!! Copernicus synthesized his findings into a book titled On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs which was published at the urging of Cardinal Widmannstetter and dedicated to Pope Paul III: the man who had provided the means to enable Copernicus to do his research.
Copernicus was leery of having his work published but not because of concern of church censure. Instead, his concern was the ridicule he would receive from his fellow scientists!!! It was at the insistence of Cardinal Schonberg (Archbishop of Capua), Bishop Giese of Culm and many other learned ecclesiastics who insisted that he publish his findings. Bishop Giese selected the Wittenburg mathematician and cartographer George Joachim Rheticus (who had renounced his professors chair in Wittenberg to learn from Copernicus) to edit the work and assist the aging Copernicus in its publication. Here is where it gets a bit complicating but I will try to summarize it as reasonably as I can.
Rheticus was too busy to supervise the editing as he was in the process of trying to regain his chair in Wittenburg which he was refused on the grounds of his heliocentric beliefs. (I remind you that Wittenberg was a Lutheran institution not a Catholic one at this time.) He gave the work to the German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Schöner and the German Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander .
The point I am making by outlining all of this is that Copernicus was never condemned by the Catholic Church for propounding his hypothesis of heliocentrism. It is true that Copernicus' work was placed on the Index seventy odd years later during the controversy involving Galileo. And as Galileo kept referring to Copernicus' work, it was subjected to examination and placed on the Index in 1616 "until corrected." The corrections were noted in 1620 and they consisted of nine sentences which proclaimed the heliocentric system as "certain." Those sentences needed to be omitted or corrected to indicate that the system was not proven but a possible theory only. Once that was done, the book was allowed to be read.
This is not the problem one might presume as Copernicus was on his deathbed when the first printing of his work was made and in no condition to review the printed text. However, he was a faithful Catholic and would have accepted these corrections to his work as he did not have the arrogance that Galileo had on the matter. As I know you want to talk about the Galileo incident as a supposed "proof" against the Church's credibility, let us do that now.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." (Condemnation of Galileo, June 22, 1633)
How familiar might I ask are you of the whole Galileo situation??? Because as I noted with Copernicus, there was never a problem with the heliocentric system proposed as a scientific hypothesis. Galileo had no conclusive proof for his position and there still is not. But he moved anyway to declare that his position was "the truth" and despite the Inquisition giving permission for him to publish a book dealing with the two cosmological theories then in circulation (geocentric or Ptolemaic and heliocentric or Copernican) Galileo in doing this avoided a balanced treatment on the matter and instead treated the Ptolemaic view as naive and absurd.
He did this I remind you with no conclusive proof whatsoever for the Copernican model. And it was even worse when you consider that Galileo's theory on the Copernican model was filled with gaps and errors and the like. If you think this treatment is proper and scientifically appropriate than there is nothing more to say because by any pretense of scientific standard the idea of declaring any hypothesis as "certain" or otherwise beyond any doubt whatsoever is ridiculous if you do not have conclusive proof. And Galileo had no conclusive proof. To make matters worse still, he refused to consider modified versions of the Ptolomaic model (such as the Tychonic system) or Kepler's heliocentric models which were derived from measurements involved in the latter system and incidentally, more accurate than Galileo's. In fact, Galileo mocked these other approaches though they were more accurate than his own.
If he would have been content to render his view as a scientific hypothesis, there would have been no problem. Indeed, this was made clear by St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine in a 1615 letter to the Carmelite provincial Paolo Foscarini who had inquired on the matter with him.
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing...
[I]t seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians...
After pointing out the problems he saw with the assertions of Galileo beyond the area of scientific hypothesis, he noted the following as a course of action that would be required if scientific demonstration confirmed beyond the merely hypothetical what Galileo was presuming. To wit:
[I]f there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers...
Note the reference to not being able to say that something was false which had been demonstrated. That is the rub because Galileo did not have a convincing heliocentric (or Copernican) model. The most accurate model of the time was that of Tycho Brahe which was a modified geocentric (or Ptolomaic) model which is what the Catholic leaders generally favoured at the time. It was significantly more accurate than Galileo's. Brahe's assistant Johannes Kepler actually developed his own heliocentric hypothesis based on Brahe's measurements later on. Did Galileo accept Kepler's model of heliocentrism??? Nope, he not only rejected it but he actually ridiculed it despite Kepler's model making far more accurate predictions of planetary movement than Galileo's did.
As far as the quote you noted above, it was the sentence of a court tribunal and based on Galileo traversing the field of scientific hypotheses and presuming to make definitive statements on matters of theology. It does not even remotely approach a matter of faith, the decision was never even signed by Pope Urban VIII (who was a friend of Galileo's in case you did not know). The idea that ecclesiastical court judgments of an individual somehow constitute matters of Catholic faith is a leap worthy of Evel Knievel.
It should also be noted that prior to his rash refusal to remain within the realm of scientific hypotheses that Galileo actually took the approach towards these matters that the Catholic Church has subsequently taken and akin to what Copernicus took prior to him. This is why Copernicus was not censured and why Galileo would not have been either -if he had possessed a greater sense of tact than he eventually did.
I used to fantasize about what would have happened if the Church had supported Galileo rather than condemning him. Protestants at the time would have had a field day crowing about how this was proof that the Catholic Church was ignoring the plain words of Scripture. Then the Prots would have had to eat crow when Galileo was proved right. That might have killed off Protestantism right then and there because they would have realized the dangers of private interpretation. It would be as if God had said, "My Word will do you no good without My Church to interpret it for you."
Of course the problem is, Galileo's model was highly inaccurate and he never established his model as a viable theory. Galileo was never "proven right" as you claim and that is the rub. By contrast Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity has been demonstrated to be a viable theory. And as Einstein's theories postulate the lack of a fixed geometric center to the universe -the universe's center for an observer essentially being where they stand- if this is not a refutation of Galileo's hypothesis then I do not know what is. (As all heliocentric models take as a foundational presupposition that the sun is at the center of the universe.)
In short, Galileo has been refuted by science but (strangely enough) those who bring the Galileo affair up never seem to want to acknowledge this. I wonder why!!!
But that did not happen. The Church proved to be no more inspired than the Bible. Consequently, the Church was wrong because the Bible was wrong. The Church retreated from any further confrontations with science, realizing that she could no longer trust the Bible or her interpretation of it.
Actually, Einstein's theories of relativity are quite consonant with the Scriptural accounts.
Protestants, however, conveniently reinterpreted Scripture and deluded themselves into believing that the conflict was caused by the Catholic Church corrupting Christianity with Aristotelian philosophy. Their faith in the Bible undiminished, it was the Protestants who fought the evolutionists while a chastened Catholic Church remained on the sidelines. But now most Protestants have conceded to the evolutionists and have also retreated from any further confrontations with science.
Let's face it, Shawn. You can believe in science or you can believe in the Bible. But you can't believe in both.
But I do believe in both. And as believing in science means rejecting the thesis of the sun being at the center of the universe (that is what is at the heart of heliocentric theory after all), to that extent I concur with science. And on this matter, so by all appearances does the Bible.
Sincerely,
A Reluctant Atheist
Well, hopefully what is covered in this note will give you some food for further reflections on these subjects.
(Responding to a Reluctant Atheist)
My interlocuter's words will be in shale coloured font.
Shawn,
In your blog on Saturday, February 17, 2007 you wrote in response to a letter from a Creationist:
"I would suggest that you be a lot more cautious in your attempts to dismiss the theories of evolution and a lot less blindly accepting of the contradictory, factually-challenged pseudo "science" of the Creationist crowd. We are not fundamentalists XXXXX and do not accept the Bible as a science text."
But Catholics do accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
Yes but the two are not ipso facto synonymous. As Venerable Cardinal Caesar Baronius around 1598 noted "[t]he Bible is given to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." St. Augustine similarly noted twelve hundred years before him that "[o]ne does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: 'I will send the Paraclete who will teach you the course of the sun and moon.' For he willed to make them Christians not mathematicians." St. Augustine's teacher St. Ambrose asserted that "[t]o discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help us in our hope of the life to come." In other words, the Bible was given with a certain intention in mind and throughout Christian history, that view has been reiterated by the Church's most learned theologians.
Now it is true that some of them did espouse a literal view on these matters back when there was no scientific evidence to contradict it, the overall attitude taken was one akin to what is noted above by St. Augustine and St. Ambrose: recognition that matters of science and mathematics were not what the Scriptures were intended to convey. This is not difficult to demonstrate and it further erodes the notion that the church even from its earliest days read Genesis as the so-called "creationists" are doing. Consider for example the following written over a thousand years before the existence of the telescope:
Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of "spiritual light" in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true. And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides. And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context...
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.
None of what Augustine recommends coheres with the approach to Genesis that you have taken. And as this was a thousand years before the invention of the telescope, you cannot credibly claim th at this attitude was taken as some feeble attempt to defend ancient understandings from modern science or something along those lines.
The same God who created the world also wrote the Bible. So when the Author of the Bible writes about how the world was created we have to assume that He knows what He is talking about.
There is no shortage of people who attempt to interpret the Bible through an empiricist framework as if the texts are all of the same genre, all of the same styling, and all to be viewed as literal history. Ask yourself for a moment this question:
If it is not difficult to misunderstand contemporaries when we use the same languages and (presumably) have many of the same fundamentals of understanding, why should one presume that ancient writings millennial in age would somehow be easier to correctly understand???
The truth is, the Semitic people of the ancient east did not conceive of history as we do and wrote with a variety of literary genres much as we do today. This is something that I am amazed is so often not considered by not a few people who attempt to write on these matters.
Yet it is clear that whoever wrote the creation story in Genesis doesn't know what he is talking about.
Again, only if you are interpreting the creation account as an emperical literal history. If this was not the author's intention, then can you not see how your argument from this point onward is constructed on a faulty premise??? You have to consider among other things the times the texts were written in, the intention of the authors, and how they would use figures etc. in a matter that would resonate with the understanding of the people of a given epoch. (I say it that way as the various books of the Bible were written at different times and with different intentions of the author in mind.)
So the credibility of the Bible is destroyed.
The credibility of the Bible is no more destroyed in such an example than the episodes of Star Trek would be if someone two thousand years from now tried to pass them off as "literal history" rather than try to assess what genre the writing is in. In the case of Star Trek, it is "science fiction", in the case of Genesis, the first three chapters contain an allegorical account which in the understanding of the monotheistic religions conveys essential truths without error.
To understand what a written text means, it makes sense to consider what the authormay or may not have intended does it not??? But rather than do that, the common approach of the modern atheist or agnostic is to subject the ancient texts to "enlightenment" principles including viewing every phrase in a crassly literal sense. Then they claim the Bible is "false" when they have not bothered to try and ascertain whether or not the methodology then employ --which in some cases is undoubtedly valid-- is not itself misapplied in this instance.
Creationists understand this. They understand what is at stake, which is why they try to find scientific facts to bolster the creation story.
They err in presuming that the creation story was intended to be read as literal history ala the sorts of histories we compile today.
Yes, they twist science to fit the Bible, but aren't you guilty of the same thing, Shawn, only in reverse? Aren't you twisting the Bible to fit science?
Since I do not consider the Bible to be a science book to begin with, how can I be doing this???
You criticize Creationists for not "accepting the (scientific) evidences for what they are and adjusting their interpretation of the (Biblical) text accordingly." But that approach results in a dishonest reading of the Bible. Six days doesn't really mean six days, forming man from the dust of the earth doesn't really mean that man was formed from the dust of the earth, creating trees before creating the sun doesn't really mean that trees were created before the sun. Your approach is intellectually dishonest. The Bible can never be proven wrong because its words have no fixed meaning.
Again, have you taken any time whatsoever to consider the situation of literary genres in writing??? If you are familiar with Hebrew at all, the word translated as "day" has several interpretations as to a length of time. There are various usages throughout the Bible including various usages in Genesis itself. Again, if you do not try to focus on what the intention of the writer was, misunderstanding is not only likely but to be expected.
As recently as the period of the high scholastics (13th century), a process of interpretation of the Bible was codified which was called the "four senses of Scripture." (Literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical.) It was not a novelty or an innovation at the time of interpretive methodology but instead was a summing up of the various ancient ways that were utilized by the Fathers and Doctors prior to their time under one heading essentially. (I gave you an example of Augustine taking this approach above.) This was all done centuries prior to the whole Galileo incident (yes, I know where this is going) so I cannot be intellectually dishonest in referring to it here.
As a Catholic you will say that we cannot rely on our own private interpretation of the Bible but, instead, we must defer to the Church's role as the Bible's infallible interpreter. As a cradle Catholic I would agree. Unfortunately, the Church has failed to live up to that role.
Here it comes...
In one fell swoop the Galileo affair destroyed both the credibility of the Bible as the inerrant word of God and the Catholic Church as the Bible's infallible interpreter:
Of course since the Church had no problem with heliocentrism proposed in various hypotheses before Galileo was even born, this is a fact seriously undermining the common account of this matter. Need I remind you of Nicolaus Copernicus??? He died twenty years before Galileo was even born. He formulated the first heliocentric scientific hypothesis. His hypothesis was tested in private and eventually delivered by Cardinal Johann Albrecht Widmannstetter (papal Secretary State for Pope Clement VII and Pope Paul III) before prelates in Rome including several high ranking cardinals and Pope Clement VII in 1533. This was a hundred years before Galileo's sentencing and thirty-one years before Galileo was born!!! Copernicus synthesized his findings into a book titled On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs which was published at the urging of Cardinal Widmannstetter and dedicated to Pope Paul III: the man who had provided the means to enable Copernicus to do his research.
Copernicus was leery of having his work published but not because of concern of church censure. Instead, his concern was the ridicule he would receive from his fellow scientists!!! It was at the insistence of Cardinal Schonberg (Archbishop of Capua), Bishop Giese of Culm and many other learned ecclesiastics who insisted that he publish his findings. Bishop Giese selected the Wittenburg mathematician and cartographer George Joachim Rheticus (who had renounced his professors chair in Wittenberg to learn from Copernicus) to edit the work and assist the aging Copernicus in its publication. Here is where it gets a bit complicating but I will try to summarize it as reasonably as I can.
Rheticus was too busy to supervise the editing as he was in the process of trying to regain his chair in Wittenburg which he was refused on the grounds of his heliocentric beliefs. (I remind you that Wittenberg was a Lutheran institution not a Catholic one at this time.) He gave the work to the German mathematician and astronomer Johannes Schöner and the German Lutheran theologian Andreas Osiander .
The point I am making by outlining all of this is that Copernicus was never condemned by the Catholic Church for propounding his hypothesis of heliocentrism. It is true that Copernicus' work was placed on the Index seventy odd years later during the controversy involving Galileo. And as Galileo kept referring to Copernicus' work, it was subjected to examination and placed on the Index in 1616 "until corrected." The corrections were noted in 1620 and they consisted of nine sentences which proclaimed the heliocentric system as "certain." Those sentences needed to be omitted or corrected to indicate that the system was not proven but a possible theory only. Once that was done, the book was allowed to be read.
This is not the problem one might presume as Copernicus was on his deathbed when the first printing of his work was made and in no condition to review the printed text. However, he was a faithful Catholic and would have accepted these corrections to his work as he did not have the arrogance that Galileo had on the matter. As I know you want to talk about the Galileo incident as a supposed "proof" against the Church's credibility, let us do that now.
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the above-mentioned Galileo, because of the things deduced in the trial and confessed by you as above, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctine which is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and the earth moves and is not the center of the world, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture." (Condemnation of Galileo, June 22, 1633)
How familiar might I ask are you of the whole Galileo situation??? Because as I noted with Copernicus, there was never a problem with the heliocentric system proposed as a scientific hypothesis. Galileo had no conclusive proof for his position and there still is not. But he moved anyway to declare that his position was "the truth" and despite the Inquisition giving permission for him to publish a book dealing with the two cosmological theories then in circulation (geocentric or Ptolemaic and heliocentric or Copernican) Galileo in doing this avoided a balanced treatment on the matter and instead treated the Ptolemaic view as naive and absurd.
He did this I remind you with no conclusive proof whatsoever for the Copernican model. And it was even worse when you consider that Galileo's theory on the Copernican model was filled with gaps and errors and the like. If you think this treatment is proper and scientifically appropriate than there is nothing more to say because by any pretense of scientific standard the idea of declaring any hypothesis as "certain" or otherwise beyond any doubt whatsoever is ridiculous if you do not have conclusive proof. And Galileo had no conclusive proof. To make matters worse still, he refused to consider modified versions of the Ptolomaic model (such as the Tychonic system) or Kepler's heliocentric models which were derived from measurements involved in the latter system and incidentally, more accurate than Galileo's. In fact, Galileo mocked these other approaches though they were more accurate than his own.
If he would have been content to render his view as a scientific hypothesis, there would have been no problem. Indeed, this was made clear by St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine in a 1615 letter to the Carmelite provincial Paolo Foscarini who had inquired on the matter with him.
I have gladly read the letter in Italian and the treatise which Your Reverence sent me, and I thank you for both. And I confess that both are filled with ingenuity and learning, and since you ask for my opinion, I will give it to you very briefly, as you have little time for reading and I for writing...
[I]t seems to me that Your Reverence and Galileo did prudently to content yourself with speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed that Copernicus spoke. For to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians...
After pointing out the problems he saw with the assertions of Galileo beyond the area of scientific hypothesis, he noted the following as a course of action that would be required if scientific demonstration confirmed beyond the merely hypothetical what Galileo was presuming. To wit:
[I]f there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration might exist, but I have grave doubts about the second, and in a case of doubt, one may not depart from the Scriptures as explained by the holy Fathers...
Note the reference to not being able to say that something was false which had been demonstrated. That is the rub because Galileo did not have a convincing heliocentric (or Copernican) model. The most accurate model of the time was that of Tycho Brahe which was a modified geocentric (or Ptolomaic) model which is what the Catholic leaders generally favoured at the time. It was significantly more accurate than Galileo's. Brahe's assistant Johannes Kepler actually developed his own heliocentric hypothesis based on Brahe's measurements later on. Did Galileo accept Kepler's model of heliocentrism??? Nope, he not only rejected it but he actually ridiculed it despite Kepler's model making far more accurate predictions of planetary movement than Galileo's did.
As far as the quote you noted above, it was the sentence of a court tribunal and based on Galileo traversing the field of scientific hypotheses and presuming to make definitive statements on matters of theology. It does not even remotely approach a matter of faith, the decision was never even signed by Pope Urban VIII (who was a friend of Galileo's in case you did not know). The idea that ecclesiastical court judgments of an individual somehow constitute matters of Catholic faith is a leap worthy of Evel Knievel.
It should also be noted that prior to his rash refusal to remain within the realm of scientific hypotheses that Galileo actually took the approach towards these matters that the Catholic Church has subsequently taken and akin to what Copernicus took prior to him. This is why Copernicus was not censured and why Galileo would not have been either -if he had possessed a greater sense of tact than he eventually did.
I used to fantasize about what would have happened if the Church had supported Galileo rather than condemning him. Protestants at the time would have had a field day crowing about how this was proof that the Catholic Church was ignoring the plain words of Scripture. Then the Prots would have had to eat crow when Galileo was proved right. That might have killed off Protestantism right then and there because they would have realized the dangers of private interpretation. It would be as if God had said, "My Word will do you no good without My Church to interpret it for you."
Of course the problem is, Galileo's model was highly inaccurate and he never established his model as a viable theory. Galileo was never "proven right" as you claim and that is the rub. By contrast Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity has been demonstrated to be a viable theory. And as Einstein's theories postulate the lack of a fixed geometric center to the universe -the universe's center for an observer essentially being where they stand- if this is not a refutation of Galileo's hypothesis then I do not know what is. (As all heliocentric models take as a foundational presupposition that the sun is at the center of the universe.)
In short, Galileo has been refuted by science but (strangely enough) those who bring the Galileo affair up never seem to want to acknowledge this. I wonder why!!!
But that did not happen. The Church proved to be no more inspired than the Bible. Consequently, the Church was wrong because the Bible was wrong. The Church retreated from any further confrontations with science, realizing that she could no longer trust the Bible or her interpretation of it.
Actually, Einstein's theories of relativity are quite consonant with the Scriptural accounts.
Protestants, however, conveniently reinterpreted Scripture and deluded themselves into believing that the conflict was caused by the Catholic Church corrupting Christianity with Aristotelian philosophy. Their faith in the Bible undiminished, it was the Protestants who fought the evolutionists while a chastened Catholic Church remained on the sidelines. But now most Protestants have conceded to the evolutionists and have also retreated from any further confrontations with science.
Let's face it, Shawn. You can believe in science or you can believe in the Bible. But you can't believe in both.
But I do believe in both. And as believing in science means rejecting the thesis of the sun being at the center of the universe (that is what is at the heart of heliocentric theory after all), to that extent I concur with science. And on this matter, so by all appearances does the Bible.
Sincerely,
A Reluctant Atheist
Well, hopefully what is covered in this note will give you some food for further reflections on these subjects.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
As tomorrow will be the sixty-sixth anniversary of the birth of my late father Richard Dunn McElhinney (March 4, 1941), prayers for the eternal repose of his soul would be most appreciated.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace with all the souls of the faithfully departed. Amen.
Friday, March 02, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On the Real Legacy of Pope Pius XII -Born 131 Years Ago Today)
Jews, whatever their feeling about the Catholic Church, have a duty to reject any attempt to usurp the Holocaust and use it for partisan purposes in such a debate – particularly when the attempt disparages the testimony of Holocaust survivors and spreads to inappropriate figures the condemnation that belongs to Hitler and the Nazis.... "The Talmud teaches that whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by scripture as if he had preserved the whole world." More than any other twentieth century leader, Pius fulfilled the Talmudic dictum when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other pope has been so widely praised by Jews – and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of the Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was genuinely and profoundly a righteous gentile. [Rabbi David Dalin]
(On the Real Legacy of Pope Pius XII -Born 131 Years Ago Today)
Jews, whatever their feeling about the Catholic Church, have a duty to reject any attempt to usurp the Holocaust and use it for partisan purposes in such a debate – particularly when the attempt disparages the testimony of Holocaust survivors and spreads to inappropriate figures the condemnation that belongs to Hitler and the Nazis.... "The Talmud teaches that whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by scripture as if he had preserved the whole world." More than any other twentieth century leader, Pius fulfilled the Talmudic dictum when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other pope has been so widely praised by Jews – and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of the Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was genuinely and profoundly a righteous gentile. [Rabbi David Dalin]
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Points to Ponder:
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. [Schenck v. United States (circa 1919)]
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
"A Convenient Hypocrite" Dept.
To reiterate something noted on this weblog recently, is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? Apparently not as the former "Number 2" of the nation has won Oscar awards for a "documentary"{1} where he encourages everyone to act in a fashion that he himself does not act in. Or as World Net Daily noted when quoting the acceptance speech of the former Vice-President of the United States from Sunday evening:
"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis," Gore said after taking the stage. "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."
The problem with Mr. Gore publicly making such requests of other people is that he does not practice what he preaches. Or as the above WND article noted when it comes to Gore's actions as opposed to his statements on these matters:
Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee.
The former vice president's mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service...
[A]ccording to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.
Oh but there is more since at the very least if there was a decrease in Gore's usage then it would at least give the appearance that he is trying to curb his own usage to follow his own advice to others.{2}
Since the release of Gore's film, the former vice president and presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.
In other words, do as Mr. Gore says, not as he does. Those who wonder why the present writer does not take him seriously need not consider anything more than that really -and that is the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} Do not get me started on the problems with the "facts" Gore presented except to say that he was very Michael Mooreish in his manipulation of the data to reach a pre-conceived conclusion.
{2} As habits can take a while to break, evidence of movement in the direction of his advice could be presumed to be an objective manifestation
To reiterate something noted on this weblog recently, is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore??? Apparently not as the former "Number 2" of the nation has won Oscar awards for a "documentary"{1} where he encourages everyone to act in a fashion that he himself does not act in. Or as World Net Daily noted when quoting the acceptance speech of the former Vice-President of the United States from Sunday evening:
"My fellow Americans, people all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis," Gore said after taking the stage. "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act. That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."
The problem with Mr. Gore publicly making such requests of other people is that he does not practice what he preaches. Or as the above WND article noted when it comes to Gore's actions as opposed to his statements on these matters:
Al Gore deserves an Oscar for hypocrisy to go along with the two Academy Awards his movie won last night, contends a think tank from his home state Tennessee.
The former vice president's mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service...
[A]ccording to the Tennessee think tank, while the average American household consumed 10,656 kilowatt-hours last year, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 – more than 20 times the national average.
Oh but there is more since at the very least if there was a decrease in Gore's usage then it would at least give the appearance that he is trying to curb his own usage to follow his own advice to others.{2}
Since the release of Gore's film, the former vice president and presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.
In other words, do as Mr. Gore says, not as he does. Those who wonder why the present writer does not take him seriously need not consider anything more than that really -and that is the bottom line.
Notes:
{1} Do not get me started on the problems with the "facts" Gore presented except to say that he was very Michael Mooreish in his manipulation of the data to reach a pre-conceived conclusion.
{2} As habits can take a while to break, evidence of movement in the direction of his advice could be presumed to be an objective manifestation
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Miscellaneous Musings:
---I wonder when there will be some consistency from the crowd which was all up in hackles over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame's supposed "covert" CIA status by either Karl "Darth" Rove or one of his supporters.{1} Right now Lewis "Scooter" Libby is on trial accused of perjury. Here is what he is facing according to the above link:
Mr Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if found guilty.
Imagine that folks, 30 years in prison and a million quart all for mere perjury!!! I thought perjury was no big deal -indeed that is what certain nattering nabobs of the "anybody but Bush" contingent were saying back in 1999. Do we need to remind readers that back in 1999 President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice??? And the consensus of those who opposed impeachment at the time{2} was that lying under oath was "no big deal." Now these same people want to approach Lewis Libby as if perjury in his case was somehow "a big deal." The reason that they do this of course should be obvious: perjury is "no big deal" when one of their people does it but when it is not one of their people then it is a problem. How about merely recognizing that perjury is wrong period. Or is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore???
---Those who remember your host's contemplations of possible support for a Lieberman campaign in early 2004 and wondered what would bring that about, the reason is simple folks: he has principles.{3} And on the crucial issue of national security and recognizing the nature of the threat we face, Senator Lieberman has stood firm writing a very good Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal this morning which includes this encapsulation of what we are facing right now in Iraq:
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? [Senator Joseph Lieberman: From The Choice on Iraq (circa February 26, 2007)]
In other words, are those who make a cottage industry out of bitching and moaning about the war interested in the real war or the political one??? More could be said by us but Sen. Lieberman sums it up well in the article above. It really is annoying at times that so many people are obtuse to what we are really facing in the world today threat-wise. There is a serious problem with modern people lacking historical perspective when it comes to matters of war.{4} For all of the Keystone Kops problems that have attended this war, it has still been remarkably successful if you gauge it to other wars in American history.
This writer for one does not write much on the war subject and the everyday flotsam and jetsam that the msm puts together because he took a well-reasoned consistent position on this back in 2003 which remains as valid as it was when it was first written.{5} Your host certainly never took his position based on the case made for war publicly made by the Bush Administration. And it would be pointless to note the areas where things could have been done better as that would cover the lions share of the post-war stability element of the equation.
The approach in the post-war stabilization area has changed in the past month as President Bush noted it would after the election of 2006. It seems appropriate therefore in light of a different approach being taken in Iraq in recent weeks -and judging from what we have seen so far, it is working- to at the very least take a "wait and see" approach. That is all your host plans to say on the matter at the present time.
---There is also a recent attempted Taliban assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney which is is now in the news. On that matter, it is summed up so well by Powerline that I will defer to what they have to say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)
{2} Your host thought then and thinks today that Kenneth Starr made a serious tactical blunder here when there were two other areas where far stronger cases for impeachment could have been made.
{3} The present writer has some serious issues with not a few of those principles but considering the flim flam nature of the present Administration at times, we were well within our rights to consider other feaasible options if they were presented to us. (Ultimately of course, they were not but that is another subject altogether.)
{4} [O]nly a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. [Victor David Hanson: Give Petraeus a Chance (circa February 6, 2007)]
{5} Nothing of a significant nature since that time has happened to warrant a revision of the position as taken at that time -one which it should be noted was arrived at at a fairly slow and deliberative pace.
---I wonder when there will be some consistency from the crowd which was all up in hackles over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame's supposed "covert" CIA status by either Karl "Darth" Rove or one of his supporters.{1} Right now Lewis "Scooter" Libby is on trial accused of perjury. Here is what he is facing according to the above link:
Mr Libby is charged with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements and one count of obstruction of justice. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if found guilty.
Imagine that folks, 30 years in prison and a million quart all for mere perjury!!! I thought perjury was no big deal -indeed that is what certain nattering nabobs of the "anybody but Bush" contingent were saying back in 1999. Do we need to remind readers that back in 1999 President Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice??? And the consensus of those who opposed impeachment at the time{2} was that lying under oath was "no big deal." Now these same people want to approach Lewis Libby as if perjury in his case was somehow "a big deal." The reason that they do this of course should be obvious: perjury is "no big deal" when one of their people does it but when it is not one of their people then it is a problem. How about merely recognizing that perjury is wrong period. Or is asking for people to not engage in double standards simply too much to ask for anymore???
---Those who remember your host's contemplations of possible support for a Lieberman campaign in early 2004 and wondered what would bring that about, the reason is simple folks: he has principles.{3} And on the crucial issue of national security and recognizing the nature of the threat we face, Senator Lieberman has stood firm writing a very good Op-Ed piece for The Wall Street Journal this morning which includes this encapsulation of what we are facing right now in Iraq:
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here? [Senator Joseph Lieberman: From The Choice on Iraq (circa February 26, 2007)]
In other words, are those who make a cottage industry out of bitching and moaning about the war interested in the real war or the political one??? More could be said by us but Sen. Lieberman sums it up well in the article above. It really is annoying at times that so many people are obtuse to what we are really facing in the world today threat-wise. There is a serious problem with modern people lacking historical perspective when it comes to matters of war.{4} For all of the Keystone Kops problems that have attended this war, it has still been remarkably successful if you gauge it to other wars in American history.
This writer for one does not write much on the war subject and the everyday flotsam and jetsam that the msm puts together because he took a well-reasoned consistent position on this back in 2003 which remains as valid as it was when it was first written.{5} Your host certainly never took his position based on the case made for war publicly made by the Bush Administration. And it would be pointless to note the areas where things could have been done better as that would cover the lions share of the post-war stability element of the equation.
The approach in the post-war stabilization area has changed in the past month as President Bush noted it would after the election of 2006. It seems appropriate therefore in light of a different approach being taken in Iraq in recent weeks -and judging from what we have seen so far, it is working- to at the very least take a "wait and see" approach. That is all your host plans to say on the matter at the present time.
---There is also a recent attempted Taliban assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney which is is now in the news. On that matter, it is summed up so well by Powerline that I will defer to what they have to say on the matter for now.
Notes:
{1} Briefly on the Karl Rove Situation (circa July 14, 2005)
{2} Your host thought then and thinks today that Kenneth Starr made a serious tactical blunder here when there were two other areas where far stronger cases for impeachment could have been made.
{3} The present writer has some serious issues with not a few of those principles but considering the flim flam nature of the present Administration at times, we were well within our rights to consider other feaasible options if they were presented to us. (Ultimately of course, they were not but that is another subject altogether.)
{4} [O]nly a military blow to the insurgency will allow the necessary window for the government to gain time, trust, and confidence to press ahead with reform and services. And this is as it always has been in wars. [Victor David Hanson: Give Petraeus a Chance (circa February 6, 2007)]
{5} Nothing of a significant nature since that time has happened to warrant a revision of the position as taken at that time -one which it should be noted was arrived at at a fairly slow and deliberative pace.
On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As readers for some time are not unaware, the subject of problems that impede a proper understanding in dialogue have been written on before at this weblog at sundry times and in diverse manners.{1} However, there is one factor that while perhaps touched on in spots nonetheless has never been publicly developed before by the present writer in and of itself. What the present writer refers to here is something that has no small degree of confusion by many people is the confusion of their intentions with reality. One group who historically has made these mistakes are marxist revolutionary sorts. To briefly reference something written on this weblog back in 2005 pertaining to the subject at hand for illustrative purposes:
The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.
Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]
The reason it was noted before that every socialist is a defacto marxist is because socialism is the communist tree in an earlier stage of growth.{2} But that is neither here nor there because the purpose of citing the above material in the present posting is to point out an example of the problems that come from confusing intentions with reality. This is what solipsism is as has been noted before: the self knowing nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. To such persons, you can reason with them until your hair falls out but they will often not budge. One reason could be because they cannot be reasoned with. Another though can be due to the person confusing reality with their intentions.{3}
If we are dealing with a person's written words, the latter problem can at times make it very difficult to talk with them because while you point out to them what they actually said{4}, they may take issue with this and shift the ground to what they claim to have intended. This is a variation of a fallacy called red herring because it does not pertain to the issue of discussion.{5} In the case of shifting from emperical evidence of what was said to subjective intention of the person saying it is to shift from the non-normative to the normative context. Those terms were defined briefly here and the distinction being made between them is hardly insignificant. Indeed, the difference between what is objectively verifiable and what was subjectively intended is a night and day distinction because one can be verified by empirical evidence objectively and the other cannot.
As time allows for it (and if the mood to discuss them is there), the present writer may cover how certain fallacies of argumentation pertain to the distinction made above and how certain critics of your host involve themselves in these fallacies despite their claims otherwise. But in the meantime, hopefully this brief posting is adequate to point out an important distinction that many who confuse their intentions with reality need to be made aware of.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 20, 2007)]
{2} [W]hether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 13, 2002)]
{3} It is not uncommon for these sorts to accuse those who point out what their statements and actions logically involve of being "liars" or of "lying" and often they do this with a degree of personal indignation. The reader should remember that the reason for this is that the person is confusing objective reality with subjective intention. Since these people would claim that their subjective intention is pure, right, or whatever, they view anything that does not support their subjective intention as a misrepresentation of objective reality rather than consider the alternative.
The alternative, of course is that the objective meaning of their statements does not support their later-stated intentions or subjective intentions. When the latter is properly understood, it is evident that those who point these distinctions out (where they are valid) are not "lying" or "slandering" them but instead are correctly describing the situation objectively and apart from the other person's subjective intention.
{4} Assuming for a moment that they even bothered to quote the words in context of course. (This is unfortunately no small assumption to be making oftentimes.)
{5} To take the definition of red herring from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary for the sake of reader convenience (all emphasis is the present writer's):
Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue. [LINK]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
As readers for some time are not unaware, the subject of problems that impede a proper understanding in dialogue have been written on before at this weblog at sundry times and in diverse manners.{1} However, there is one factor that while perhaps touched on in spots nonetheless has never been publicly developed before by the present writer in and of itself. What the present writer refers to here is something that has no small degree of confusion by many people is the confusion of their intentions with reality. One group who historically has made these mistakes are marxist revolutionary sorts. To briefly reference something written on this weblog back in 2005 pertaining to the subject at hand for illustrative purposes:
The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.
Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 20, 2005)]
The reason it was noted before that every socialist is a defacto marxist is because socialism is the communist tree in an earlier stage of growth.{2} But that is neither here nor there because the purpose of citing the above material in the present posting is to point out an example of the problems that come from confusing intentions with reality. This is what solipsism is as has been noted before: the self knowing nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. To such persons, you can reason with them until your hair falls out but they will often not budge. One reason could be because they cannot be reasoned with. Another though can be due to the person confusing reality with their intentions.{3}
If we are dealing with a person's written words, the latter problem can at times make it very difficult to talk with them because while you point out to them what they actually said{4}, they may take issue with this and shift the ground to what they claim to have intended. This is a variation of a fallacy called red herring because it does not pertain to the issue of discussion.{5} In the case of shifting from emperical evidence of what was said to subjective intention of the person saying it is to shift from the non-normative to the normative context. Those terms were defined briefly here and the distinction being made between them is hardly insignificant. Indeed, the difference between what is objectively verifiable and what was subjectively intended is a night and day distinction because one can be verified by empirical evidence objectively and the other cannot.
As time allows for it (and if the mood to discuss them is there), the present writer may cover how certain fallacies of argumentation pertain to the distinction made above and how certain critics of your host involve themselves in these fallacies despite their claims otherwise. But in the meantime, hopefully this brief posting is adequate to point out an important distinction that many who confuse their intentions with reality need to be made aware of.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 20, 2007)]
{2} [W]hether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 13, 2002)]
{3} It is not uncommon for these sorts to accuse those who point out what their statements and actions logically involve of being "liars" or of "lying" and often they do this with a degree of personal indignation. The reader should remember that the reason for this is that the person is confusing objective reality with subjective intention. Since these people would claim that their subjective intention is pure, right, or whatever, they view anything that does not support their subjective intention as a misrepresentation of objective reality rather than consider the alternative.
The alternative, of course is that the objective meaning of their statements does not support their later-stated intentions or subjective intentions. When the latter is properly understood, it is evident that those who point these distinctions out (where they are valid) are not "lying" or "slandering" them but instead are correctly describing the situation objectively and apart from the other person's subjective intention.
{4} Assuming for a moment that they even bothered to quote the words in context of course. (This is unfortunately no small assumption to be making oftentimes.)
{5} To take the definition of red herring from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary for the sake of reader convenience (all emphasis is the present writer's):
Main Entry: red herring
Function: noun
1 : a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue. [LINK]
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
On the Subject of Potential Financial Penalties For Libelous Public Conduct:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Having posted material on integrity, basic public and private ethics, and the building of one's character before{1} it seems appropriate to note something additional in light of some circumstances that your host has been privy to in recent weeks.
The reason for this posting is that there are certain parties who have taken a stance that is viewed by us as contradictory in its essence. They would assert that someone who engages in unrepentant libelous behaviour of public and semi-public figures in a fashion that bears false witness against their character should somehow be spared any financial repercussions on the basis of "not wanting to hurt their livelihood" or something of an equivalent nature. This is a position not only that is taken by those who seem to want to defend such persons at all possible costs (read: certain oligarchs) but even some critics who while going after such persons on principle stop short of advocating actions that may "hurt their livelihood" when a good portion of their livelihood is from public speaking, writing books, etc.
Now let me note here that I am neither condoning or condemning any actions of the sort so noted above in what I am saying here but only enunciating a general principle that seems to me to be of reasonable import. And that principle in a nutshell is this:
--Those who rely on a public profile to make a living who use that platform to libel others deserve any repercussions they get in the area of financial hardships as a result of their conduct. PERIOD.
For they should think of such things before the fact and recognize that those whose reputations are smeared by anything that is not of their own doing{2} are justified in seeking compensation. And if that compensation comes at the expense of the offender's livelihood, so be it.
Public figures have a responsibility to think of their family and anyone else who could possibly be hurt by the actions they take, the statements they make, etc if it is possible that such could affect their livelihood. If they are not willing to do this, then they have no grounds for complaint if others seek to have them deprived of income as a result of the actions they take and the statements they make. It is that simple really.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.)
{2} I say "anything that is not their own doing" because if what is raised is a correct description of what happened objectively speaking, then that is a horse of a different colour altogether. (I plan to write on these matters in the coming months to distinguish between objective manifestation and subjective intention -a distinction that a lot of people fail to make and one that in my mind is of no small importance.)
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Having posted material on integrity, basic public and private ethics, and the building of one's character before{1} it seems appropriate to note something additional in light of some circumstances that your host has been privy to in recent weeks.
The reason for this posting is that there are certain parties who have taken a stance that is viewed by us as contradictory in its essence. They would assert that someone who engages in unrepentant libelous behaviour of public and semi-public figures in a fashion that bears false witness against their character should somehow be spared any financial repercussions on the basis of "not wanting to hurt their livelihood" or something of an equivalent nature. This is a position not only that is taken by those who seem to want to defend such persons at all possible costs (read: certain oligarchs) but even some critics who while going after such persons on principle stop short of advocating actions that may "hurt their livelihood" when a good portion of their livelihood is from public speaking, writing books, etc.
Now let me note here that I am neither condoning or condemning any actions of the sort so noted above in what I am saying here but only enunciating a general principle that seems to me to be of reasonable import. And that principle in a nutshell is this:
--Those who rely on a public profile to make a living who use that platform to libel others deserve any repercussions they get in the area of financial hardships as a result of their conduct. PERIOD.
For they should think of such things before the fact and recognize that those whose reputations are smeared by anything that is not of their own doing{2} are justified in seeking compensation. And if that compensation comes at the expense of the offender's livelihood, so be it.
Public figures have a responsibility to think of their family and anyone else who could possibly be hurt by the actions they take, the statements they make, etc if it is possible that such could affect their livelihood. If they are not willing to do this, then they have no grounds for complaint if others seek to have them deprived of income as a result of the actions they take and the statements they make. It is that simple really.
Notes:
{1} Among other subject matter pertaining to these matters in some fashion or another. (To note a few of them in brief, there are the subjects of how to dialogue, how to identify and avoid a number of basic fallacies of argumentation both in actuality, outlining many of the flaws in various presumed "methodologies" of argumentation, how to cultivate the skills needed for effective reasoning and logic, the importance of vetting the sources one uses, etc.)
{2} I say "anything that is not their own doing" because if what is raised is a correct description of what happened objectively speaking, then that is a horse of a different colour altogether. (I plan to write on these matters in the coming months to distinguish between objective manifestation and subjective intention -a distinction that a lot of people fail to make and one that in my mind is of no small importance.)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Revisiting the Subjects of Evolution and the Importance of Rational Thought:
(From the Mailbag)
This was a response on a discussion list to someone who took issue with some books on the subject of evolution that were recommended for their edification. Their words in reply will be in dark red font.
On 2/14/07, XXXXX XXXXXXX wrote:
My friend, I have read these and several other books on evolution. After much research from both sides of this debate I'm afraid I must personally conclude that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is not based on scientific evidence but on speculation and wishful thinking and the part of atheistic scientists.
XXXXX, as I have told many people over the years (including not a few incautious "apologist" sorts), a theory is not a will-o-wisp conjecture. It is instead at the apex of rational inquiry and a solid point of reference for intellectual exposition. Art is correct that your statements show you lack a proper understanding of science or any training which would presume to lend any authority to your opinions provided that the latter were advanced and sustained by rational argumentation. I would like to take the occasion of your note to remind people of the building blocks of rational thought. The first is a thesis which I have defined as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Scientists who advance theses on evolution and people of your outlook who make statements against it are both on the same playing field. Where it differs is in the realm of the hypothesis. The latter is defined as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
A hypothesis in other words is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination, testing, etc. for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the flaws in potentia (but by no means the only ones) are errors of fact, errors in logic, formal contradiction, etc. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. A theory is therefore defined as follows:
Theory: A set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. And that evolution is past the point of a hypothesis has been recognized by major church leaders in recent years including the late pontiff John Paul II.
When Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 Allocution to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences that evolution was "more than a mere hypothesis", he was by logical extension referring to it as a theory properly understood. To wit:
Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
He defines "theory" a bit differently than I do but the gist of it is the same: a theory is validated by study, research, testing, etc. and stands as long as the arguments advanced to sustain it do. There is also the issue of multiple theories on the matter which the pontiff noted above and they are not devoid of scientific evidence as you claim XXXXX. In fact, they are quite well supported by scientific findings in not a few ways because a theory of a scientific nature requires for viability to have consistency with the data observed.{1}
Whether we like it or not the "pseudo-scientific drivel from the so-called "scientific" Creationists" (your words) has a much more robust foundation to the dribble of so many scientist seeking to make a name for themselves by trying to prove something unscientific - Evolution. Why are so many afraid to admit that God spoke and it came to being?
Art is right about this XXXXX, the so-called "Creationist" drivel has so many errors in fact, analysis, and internal contradiction to it that it does not pass muster as a viable theory. And part of the reason for this is that the Creationists themselves do not provide any way for their theses to be rationally disproved. The reason is because they base all of it on their own interpretation of the Bible which they do not even bother to substantiate the viability of. Instead, they claim it and then play cut and paste with the scientific data to try and make it fit their preconceived reading rather than accepting the evidences for what they are and adjusting their interpretation of the text accordingly.
I would suggest that you be a lot more cautious in your attempts to dismiss the theories of evolution and a lot less blindly accepting of the contradictory, factually-challenged pseudo "science" of the Creationist crowd. We are not fundamentalists XXXXX and do not accept the Bible as a science text. That is important to remember also though persons such as DDDDDDDD tend to forget that far too frequently.
(From the Mailbag)
This was a response on a discussion list to someone who took issue with some books on the subject of evolution that were recommended for their edification. Their words in reply will be in dark red font.
On 2/14/07, XXXXX XXXXXXX wrote:
My friend, I have read these and several other books on evolution. After much research from both sides of this debate I'm afraid I must personally conclude that the theory of evolution is just that - a theory. It is not based on scientific evidence but on speculation and wishful thinking and the part of atheistic scientists.
XXXXX, as I have told many people over the years (including not a few incautious "apologist" sorts), a theory is not a will-o-wisp conjecture. It is instead at the apex of rational inquiry and a solid point of reference for intellectual exposition. Art is correct that your statements show you lack a proper understanding of science or any training which would presume to lend any authority to your opinions provided that the latter were advanced and sustained by rational argumentation. I would like to take the occasion of your note to remind people of the building blocks of rational thought. The first is a thesis which I have defined as follows:
Thesis: An abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument.
A thesis is essentially a position that you assert before it has been substantiated by argument. Scientists who advance theses on evolution and people of your outlook who make statements against it are both on the same playing field. Where it differs is in the realm of the hypothesis. The latter is defined as follows:
Hypothesis: An explanation of a subject, circumstance, or event which is advanced on tentative grounds by a proposed thesis or series of theses and is open to further examination or being potentially disproved before it reaches the stature of a viable theory.
A hypothesis in other words is a thesis or a coordinative series of theses which are set forth in explanatory form for examination, testing, etc. for potential flaws which could invalidate it. Among the flaws in potentia (but by no means the only ones) are errors of fact, errors in logic, formal contradiction, etc. If a hypothesis withstands this kind of scrutiny and remains intact, it can validly be considered a theory. A theory is therefore defined as follows:
Theory: A set of non-contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them, principles) which purports to give either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action.
A theory in other words is a solid point of reference and is not to be dismissed as a mere whim. And that evolution is past the point of a hypothesis has been recognized by major church leaders in recent years including the late pontiff John Paul II.
When Pope John Paul II said in a 1996 Allocution to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences that evolution was "more than a mere hypothesis", he was by logical extension referring to it as a theory properly understood. To wit:
Taking into account the scientific research of the era, and also the proper requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis treated the doctrine of "evolutionism" as a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and serious study, alongside the opposite hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions for this study: one could not adopt this opinion as if it were a certain and demonstrable doctrine, and one could not totally set aside the teaching Revelation on the relevant questions. He also set out the conditions on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith—a point to which I shall return.
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. * In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.
What is the significance of a theory such as this one? To open this question is to enter into the field of epistemology. A theory is a meta-scientific elaboration, which is distinct from, but in harmony with, the results of observation. With the help of such a theory a group of data and independent facts can be related to one another and interpreted in one comprehensive explanation. The theory proves its validity by the measure to which it can be verified. It is constantly being tested against the facts; when it can no longer explain these facts, it shows its limits and its lack of usefulness, and it must be revised.
Moreover, the elaboration of a theory such as that of evolution, while obedient to the need for consistency with the observed data, must also involve importing some ideas from the philosophy of nature.
And to tell the truth, rather than speaking about the theory of evolution, it is more accurate to speak of the theories of evolution. The use of the plural is required here—in part because of the diversity of explanations regarding the mechanism of evolution, and in part because of the diversity of philosophies involved. There are materialist and reductionist theories, as well as spiritualist theories. Here the final judgment is within the competence of philosophy and, beyond that, of theology. [LINK]He defines "theory" a bit differently than I do but the gist of it is the same: a theory is validated by study, research, testing, etc. and stands as long as the arguments advanced to sustain it do. There is also the issue of multiple theories on the matter which the pontiff noted above and they are not devoid of scientific evidence as you claim XXXXX. In fact, they are quite well supported by scientific findings in not a few ways because a theory of a scientific nature requires for viability to have consistency with the data observed.{1}
Whether we like it or not the "pseudo-scientific drivel from the so-called "scientific" Creationists" (your words) has a much more robust foundation to the dribble of so many scientist seeking to make a name for themselves by trying to prove something unscientific - Evolution. Why are so many afraid to admit that God spoke and it came to being?
Art is right about this XXXXX, the so-called "Creationist" drivel has so many errors in fact, analysis, and internal contradiction to it that it does not pass muster as a viable theory. And part of the reason for this is that the Creationists themselves do not provide any way for their theses to be rationally disproved. The reason is because they base all of it on their own interpretation of the Bible which they do not even bother to substantiate the viability of. Instead, they claim it and then play cut and paste with the scientific data to try and make it fit their preconceived reading rather than accepting the evidences for what they are and adjusting their interpretation of the text accordingly.
I would suggest that you be a lot more cautious in your attempts to dismiss the theories of evolution and a lot less blindly accepting of the contradictory, factually-challenged pseudo "science" of the Creationist crowd. We are not fundamentalists XXXXX and do not accept the Bible as a science text. That is important to remember also though persons such as DDDDDDDD tend to forget that far too frequently.
Note:
{1} Theories not of a scientific nature but instead of the abstract notion of principles which purport to give a correct description of reality (or a guideline for successful action) have a similar requirement to be consistent with the known facts on which it is constructed.
{1} Theories not of a scientific nature but instead of the abstract notion of principles which purport to give a correct description of reality (or a guideline for successful action) have a similar requirement to be consistent with the known facts on which it is constructed.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Points to Ponder:
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. [Alexander Hamilton (circa 1775)]
The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power. [Alexander Hamilton (circa 1775)]
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Guest Editorial on the "Zionist Conspiracy" and Your Host's Supposed "Complicity" or "Support" Thereof:
(Written by Henrik Hassen)
While longtime readers are aware that your host does not always agree with the opinions posted in this format, it seems appropriate to note upfront that in the case of what you are about to read, that your host most definitely does not agree with the opinion about to be rendered. For those who wonder why it would be posted, it seems appropriate to remind readers who do not know or may have forgotten that Mr. Hassen first emailed us last November with the accusation of complicity in some grand conspiracy for world Zionism. At first I was hesitant to say anything about what he sent except to (i) correct his misspelling of my last name, (ii) point out that our views here are often caricatured by polemicists, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of varying persuasions, and (iii) to reiterate the consistency of your host's approach over the years to people who make public accusations of others. As Mr. Hassen claimed to have "irrefutable proof" of his assertions, I agreed to play along. He sent another email and I blogged the text figuring the longer things went without him supplying his claimed "proof", the greater the likelihood that this would be another case of someone who was not going to follow through. (A view that was reinforced to some extent when he sent me a mocking email not long after Christmas which I also blogged.) But he recently sent me the text below and presumably it is aforementioned "proof" that I did not have the "guts" to post. So I post it here as a guest editorial and readers can judge for themselves as to the merits or lack thereof of Mr. Hassen's "irrefutable" proof but without further ado, here it is...
#############################
The Zionist Conspiracy Deepens
By Henrik Hassen
After recent reflection and investigation I have come to the disheartening conclusion that the Zionist conspiracy goes far deeper than even I imagined. The Jews have managed to achieve objectives that ought to disturb even the most skeptical among us. In truth, I have reached the point where I am forced to wonder, is there no one we can trust?
My investigations recently took an unexpectedly disturbing turn when I discovered the duplicity of a member of my organization who claimed to be on the side of truth and objectivity in the quest to expose the Zionist agenda. Many of us once unhesitatingly affirmed him as one of our very best but now his duplicity been revealed.
The reality is, this man, who once fearlessly investigated and exposed Zionist conspiracies and plots across the globe by means of such ironclad proof as: Pope Paul VI wearing a Jewish ephod, FDR’s likely Jewish ancestry and Pope John Paul II’s secret love of bagels, is a Zionist himself. This founding member of The National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism, has betrayed everything in which we believe. I will now offer proof that is as incontrovertible as any offered by the conspirator himself, Robert Hanswurst.
The truth struck me after recently reading a couple of Hanswurst’s myriad exposés on Jewish conspiracies in The Redundant and E. Meschugge Kleinhirn’s Kosher Wars. Here are a few incontrovertible pieces of proof:
First, in order to counter the inevitable objections of Hanswurst’s most ardent supporters, no amount of quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion could dissuade me from reaching the conclusion that he is, in fact, a Zionist. Some of the most damning proof has been right in front of our eyes from the beginning but we were blinded by his anti-Zionist credentials and personal assurances. We all recall when Hanswurst courageously quoted from The Protocols only to eventually distance himself from the document because it had Nazi connections. It was of little solace that he defended and stood by the veracity of the material itself while disclaiming such a venerable source (a tactic we have also seen employed by the Jew, Dan Rather, one might add).
Second, Hanswurst recently wrote in an article that only 95% of Jews despise Christ. This is a monumental slip-up for any member of the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism. The figure we decided upon at our very first meeting was 99%. Only one percent of Jews are not Christ-despisers: the ones who become Christian (this much should be obvious). Of course, this is not to suggest that Jewish converts can ever be trusted. Hanswurst was at least not foolish or careless enough to suggest that, rightly exposing the secret Zionist agendas of David Moss and Roy Schoeman. Be that as it may, what I once saw as praiseworthy work in the cause of truth is now revealed as a mere tactic to hide his own Zionist efforts.
Third, Hanswurst consistently used the term “Jews” instead of “Zionists” in his first exposés and responses, even somewhat recently, in spite of direct and repeated warnings he was exposing our true views and aims. While he has most recently avoided these blunders, I believe the reason for these “accidents” has become quite clear. In fact, they were no accidents at all.
Fourth: It is true that Hanswurst publicly exposed the Zionist myth that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. But again, this was another matter of cleverly attempting to maintain credibility. Furthermore, notice that he chose a relatively obvious and innocuous charge in this case, too. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity recognizes that the Holocaust was a miniscule price to pay for what was at that point a sparsely inhabited wasteland of desert and swamp about the size of New Jersey. The Jews, as ingenious and energetic as they are with all things green, knew that this relative wasteland would become fertile, plush and desirable after decades of work there and that they would be able to parlay the convenient threats of immediate annihilation from their peaceful, oppressed Arab neighbors into further concessions and aid from future American presidents. This is, of course, all very obvious to those who are not blinded by Jewish propaganda.
Recall that after hundreds of hours of exhaustive research, pouring over thousands of original documents, Hanswurst personally uncovered the truth that the Jews orchestrated the Holocaust themselves, precisely because no one would expect it. As Hanswurst proved, by attempting to eliminate themselves from the face of the earth (or at least Europe), the Jews were able to slyly garner the worldwide sympathy necessary for them to establish that geo-political entity now commonly known solely by Zionists as the state of “Israel”. Jewish conspirators ingeniously manipulated the oft-maligned Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and millions of others into doing their will: a frightening testimony to their ingenuity and potency.
The point is simply this: Hanswurst has unwittingly tipped his duplicitous hand to all who were watching closely. Thankfully, this kind of treachery and deception could never continue for long in a group as vigilant as the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism.
Who else but Hanswurst is going after the Jews with such sustained intensity and notoriety? Who else but Hanswurst has even managed to elicit sympathy from our ally Louis Farrakhan toward the Jews by his constant, ferocious attacks (“Those poor Jews!” Louis Farrakhan, August 2005)? Who else but Hanswurst has clandestinely tipped the enemy off as to our real views and aims by incredibly damaging “accidents”? The truth is there for the objective to see: Hanswurst is using the same tactics he proved that the Jews used back in the days of the Holocaust: fomenting intense global distrust of and anger against the Jews with the underlying intent of eliciting sympathy which in turn will facilitate the spread of Zionism. The conclusion is thus inescapable: Hanswurst is a Zionist.
For those die-hard skeptics who remain unconvinced, I will offer one last piece of incontrovertible evidence. Hanswurst’s new supposedly anti-Zionist Catholic protégé, Christopher Dunkelhaft (author of The Fake Mirage), dated a girl who once worked next to a kosher deli in Brooklyn. Shocking but true. Anyone who dares to ignore my Revelations is living in a fool’s paradise.
I am sorry to be the bearer of such news, but as you know, we at the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism vowed to never be cowed by censors or facts. This is our divinely ordained prophetic call and, God willing, we will follow it faithfully until death. Our director of internal affairs, Lou Cifer, has reminded us of our duty to foment distrust, fear and hatred between Christians and Jews in the service of God.
Next week I will expose Wal-Mart’s plot to sell Christmas tree stars with six points.
Henrik Hassen
National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism
#############################
As far as your host's opinion of this "irrefutable proof", all he will say is "no comment."
(Written by Henrik Hassen)
While longtime readers are aware that your host does not always agree with the opinions posted in this format, it seems appropriate to note upfront that in the case of what you are about to read, that your host most definitely does not agree with the opinion about to be rendered. For those who wonder why it would be posted, it seems appropriate to remind readers who do not know or may have forgotten that Mr. Hassen first emailed us last November with the accusation of complicity in some grand conspiracy for world Zionism. At first I was hesitant to say anything about what he sent except to (i) correct his misspelling of my last name, (ii) point out that our views here are often caricatured by polemicists, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of varying persuasions, and (iii) to reiterate the consistency of your host's approach over the years to people who make public accusations of others. As Mr. Hassen claimed to have "irrefutable proof" of his assertions, I agreed to play along. He sent another email and I blogged the text figuring the longer things went without him supplying his claimed "proof", the greater the likelihood that this would be another case of someone who was not going to follow through. (A view that was reinforced to some extent when he sent me a mocking email not long after Christmas which I also blogged.) But he recently sent me the text below and presumably it is aforementioned "proof" that I did not have the "guts" to post. So I post it here as a guest editorial and readers can judge for themselves as to the merits or lack thereof of Mr. Hassen's "irrefutable" proof but without further ado, here it is...
#############################
The Zionist Conspiracy Deepens
By Henrik Hassen
After recent reflection and investigation I have come to the disheartening conclusion that the Zionist conspiracy goes far deeper than even I imagined. The Jews have managed to achieve objectives that ought to disturb even the most skeptical among us. In truth, I have reached the point where I am forced to wonder, is there no one we can trust?
My investigations recently took an unexpectedly disturbing turn when I discovered the duplicity of a member of my organization who claimed to be on the side of truth and objectivity in the quest to expose the Zionist agenda. Many of us once unhesitatingly affirmed him as one of our very best but now his duplicity been revealed.
The reality is, this man, who once fearlessly investigated and exposed Zionist conspiracies and plots across the globe by means of such ironclad proof as: Pope Paul VI wearing a Jewish ephod, FDR’s likely Jewish ancestry and Pope John Paul II’s secret love of bagels, is a Zionist himself. This founding member of The National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism, has betrayed everything in which we believe. I will now offer proof that is as incontrovertible as any offered by the conspirator himself, Robert Hanswurst.
The truth struck me after recently reading a couple of Hanswurst’s myriad exposés on Jewish conspiracies in The Redundant and E. Meschugge Kleinhirn’s Kosher Wars. Here are a few incontrovertible pieces of proof:
First, in order to counter the inevitable objections of Hanswurst’s most ardent supporters, no amount of quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion could dissuade me from reaching the conclusion that he is, in fact, a Zionist. Some of the most damning proof has been right in front of our eyes from the beginning but we were blinded by his anti-Zionist credentials and personal assurances. We all recall when Hanswurst courageously quoted from The Protocols only to eventually distance himself from the document because it had Nazi connections. It was of little solace that he defended and stood by the veracity of the material itself while disclaiming such a venerable source (a tactic we have also seen employed by the Jew, Dan Rather, one might add).
Second, Hanswurst recently wrote in an article that only 95% of Jews despise Christ. This is a monumental slip-up for any member of the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism. The figure we decided upon at our very first meeting was 99%. Only one percent of Jews are not Christ-despisers: the ones who become Christian (this much should be obvious). Of course, this is not to suggest that Jewish converts can ever be trusted. Hanswurst was at least not foolish or careless enough to suggest that, rightly exposing the secret Zionist agendas of David Moss and Roy Schoeman. Be that as it may, what I once saw as praiseworthy work in the cause of truth is now revealed as a mere tactic to hide his own Zionist efforts.
Third, Hanswurst consistently used the term “Jews” instead of “Zionists” in his first exposés and responses, even somewhat recently, in spite of direct and repeated warnings he was exposing our true views and aims. While he has most recently avoided these blunders, I believe the reason for these “accidents” has become quite clear. In fact, they were no accidents at all.
Fourth: It is true that Hanswurst publicly exposed the Zionist myth that six million Jews died in the Holocaust. But again, this was another matter of cleverly attempting to maintain credibility. Furthermore, notice that he chose a relatively obvious and innocuous charge in this case, too. Anyone with an ounce of objectivity recognizes that the Holocaust was a miniscule price to pay for what was at that point a sparsely inhabited wasteland of desert and swamp about the size of New Jersey. The Jews, as ingenious and energetic as they are with all things green, knew that this relative wasteland would become fertile, plush and desirable after decades of work there and that they would be able to parlay the convenient threats of immediate annihilation from their peaceful, oppressed Arab neighbors into further concessions and aid from future American presidents. This is, of course, all very obvious to those who are not blinded by Jewish propaganda.
Recall that after hundreds of hours of exhaustive research, pouring over thousands of original documents, Hanswurst personally uncovered the truth that the Jews orchestrated the Holocaust themselves, precisely because no one would expect it. As Hanswurst proved, by attempting to eliminate themselves from the face of the earth (or at least Europe), the Jews were able to slyly garner the worldwide sympathy necessary for them to establish that geo-political entity now commonly known solely by Zionists as the state of “Israel”. Jewish conspirators ingeniously manipulated the oft-maligned Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels and millions of others into doing their will: a frightening testimony to their ingenuity and potency.
The point is simply this: Hanswurst has unwittingly tipped his duplicitous hand to all who were watching closely. Thankfully, this kind of treachery and deception could never continue for long in a group as vigilant as the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism.
Who else but Hanswurst is going after the Jews with such sustained intensity and notoriety? Who else but Hanswurst has even managed to elicit sympathy from our ally Louis Farrakhan toward the Jews by his constant, ferocious attacks (“Those poor Jews!” Louis Farrakhan, August 2005)? Who else but Hanswurst has clandestinely tipped the enemy off as to our real views and aims by incredibly damaging “accidents”? The truth is there for the objective to see: Hanswurst is using the same tactics he proved that the Jews used back in the days of the Holocaust: fomenting intense global distrust of and anger against the Jews with the underlying intent of eliciting sympathy which in turn will facilitate the spread of Zionism. The conclusion is thus inescapable: Hanswurst is a Zionist.
For those die-hard skeptics who remain unconvinced, I will offer one last piece of incontrovertible evidence. Hanswurst’s new supposedly anti-Zionist Catholic protégé, Christopher Dunkelhaft (author of The Fake Mirage), dated a girl who once worked next to a kosher deli in Brooklyn. Shocking but true. Anyone who dares to ignore my Revelations is living in a fool’s paradise.
I am sorry to be the bearer of such news, but as you know, we at the National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism vowed to never be cowed by censors or facts. This is our divinely ordained prophetic call and, God willing, we will follow it faithfully until death. Our director of internal affairs, Lou Cifer, has reminded us of our duty to foment distrust, fear and hatred between Christians and Jews in the service of God.
Next week I will expose Wal-Mart’s plot to sell Christmas tree stars with six points.
Henrik Hassen
National Alliance Against Zionist Imperialism
#############################
As far as your host's opinion of this "irrefutable proof", all he will say is "no comment."
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Despite taking a rather cynical approach to the whole St. Blog's "Awards" issue in a posting written in late January and posted earlier this week, I must admit that it appears that there is a greater effort to police abuses that have happened in recent years. And for the sake of a bit of levity, I will register some votes of my own here and also some non-votes and try to explain within reason why I approach this issue as I do.
To start with, some of these categories are far too normative or subjective by nature in the absence of any way to verify emperically the subject matter being "voted" on. I will note those categories and separate them from those which -while admitting of some normative factors nonetheless are more easily able to be assessed by emperical data and thus be considered to a greater degree non-normative - categories with a * include this humble weblog as a nominee:
Smartest Catholic Blog*
Best Overall Catholic Blog*
Best New Catholic Blog
Funniest Catholic Blog
The reason I say they are much more normative is that they have factors that are overall not emperically verifiable. Other than one involving humour (and this is an area where different temperaments find different things funny; ergo non-normative standards do not apply) and the new blog factor (meaning: less than a year), the other factors are not objectively discernable without a degree of personal bias making the matter suspect. Nonetheless, here are my votes and the reasons why I voted as I did:
Smartest Catholic Blog: Sacramentum Vitae
Intelligence requires a degree of manifested learning but there is also the issue of creativity and originality of thought. I always place a high premium on these areas but not in and of themselves. And I have to admit it, by any criteria in which this is judged, most of those in this category did not deserve to be nominated. However, of the few that did I went with Dr. Michael Liccone's blog because (i) I respect his intellectual acumen even when we do not agree, (ii) Dr. Philip Blosser (Pertinacious Papist) somehow was not nominated here, (iii) Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) did not blog this year enough for consideration, and (iv) I am loathe to vote for myself if that is reasonably feasible. And with all those factors in mind, Sacramentum Vitae stands out in bold relief from the others on this list and therefore gets my vote.
Best Overall Catholic Blog: Eve Tushnet
Chris Blosser's blog has more stuff of a various degree connected with it; ergo if he was nominated here he would get my vote. But as(i) he was not, (ii) I am not familiar with many of these nominees, (iii) as I am not about to vote for myself, (iv) Eve Tushnet's blog deserved to be nominated for stuff a long time ago and was not, and (v) as she covers a lot of subjects on her blog and therefore is to a certain extent eclectic enough to qualify for an overall categorization, she gets my vote for this category.
Best New Catholic Blog: An Examined Life
Determining what is or is not "best" smacks of a normative nature that is undeniable. However, in picking Dr. Scott Carson's blog, I do so for his rounded intellectual acumen. I believe this is an area which does not get enough play in society in general and if I were to base "best" on spirituality factors, it would boil down to individual preferences and I am as susceptible to my own biases colouring my objectivity there as anyone else's. In a non-normative sense, intelligence is capable of to some degree being ascertained and in this area, Dr. Scott Carson's work stands out in several impressive respects. He therefore gets my vote here both for what he writes on and the contributions he makes to improving overall intelligence and understanding: important and often-overlooked assets but ones that your host takes seriously himself and therefore wants to recognize it in others who act in like manner.
Funniest Catholic Blog: The Curt Jester
There are some funny blogs out there but Jeff's stuff is the most original and creative: two important criteria for me when voting in any subject matter whatsoever. Of honourable mention here is Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings.
Best Individual Catholic Blog*: Dyspeptic Musings
This is far too subjective a subject matter. I readily admit that I am not familiar with many of the blogs here and do not have time to inform myself to make the most educated of judgments. I did not want to vote for myself, and I could find no other category where Dale Price was nominated where he was at best not a definite bridesmaid and not the bride (and at worst did not deserve nomination); ergo I voted for Dale Price's blog in this category.
Here are the ones which are more emperically verifiable (read: non-normative) and thus easier to give an emperical assessment thereof.
Best Written Catholic Blog*: No Vote Given
How do we determine a subject matter such as this in an emperically verifiable fashion??? The truth is, we do not unless everyone is subjected to precise analyses and those who do not follow proper diction, grammar, sentence structure, variety of vocabulary utilized, and other factors on a consistent enough basis are eliminated. To do that would be to disqualify a lot of candidates including yours truly as I am unaware of anyone who writes perfectly in the blog format. If Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) was blogging in 2006 and nominated here, he would get my vote but he was not. In truth, this is generally far too subjective a subject matter, I was not familiar with many of the blogs, and I did not want to vote for myself; ergo in the absence of others I would have voted for if they were nominated, I did not register a vote here.
Best Designed Catholic Blog: Scripture and Catholic Tradition
I know next to nothing about blog design viz. what is the best or not. However, I do know that Dr. Philip Blosser (who should have been nominated in other categories but was not) has a weblog that is well designed. The reason for this is that his son Christopher Blosser designed it -Chris and I have discussed design possibilities for this weblog and I am aware of his talents here which are significant. But much as a leader receives credit for ideas not necessarily their own, in this case Dr. Blosser as owner of the weblog nominated would get the nod.
I do not know about many of the others and out of the ones more easily verifiable emperically I am admittedly on the weakest ground trying to substantiate this selection. I also have a number of personal disagreements with Dr. Blosser on issues despite respecting his brobdingnagian intellectual acumen. But that is not the issue of question here, only the design of the weblog. And certainly his subsidiary weblog (Pertinacious Papist is his main weblog) deserves nomination in a few categories where it was not recognized. For the reasons noted above, it gets my vote however tenuous admittedly in lieu of my general ignorance of more technical design criteria of weblogs.
Best Apologetic Blog: Jimmy Akin
Once again, if we are looking for those who do apologetics at least on a reasonable enough basis to be nominated here, the list of worthies for this subject is small indeed. Out of all of them -and of those I am actually reasonably familiar with- Jimmy Akin, David Armstrong, Jacob Michael, and Al Kimel (Pontifications) are the most obvious ones belonging in this category. I voted for Jimmy Akin even though I have noted some issues I have with him in the past year. I doubt anyone nominated in this category (even those who belong here) could quibble much with that selection so that is all I will say about it.
Best Blog by a Clergy/Religious/Seminarian: Thrown Back
Of those I am familiar with, Fr. Rob Johansen's most impresses me in overall content; ergo he received my vote.
Best Group Blog: Catholic Light
I would have voted for Southern Appeal but they were not nominated again. For that reason, and because I honestly am not familiar with many of these blogs, I voted for Catholic Light.
Best Insider News Catholic Blog: No Vote Given
I was looking for Dumb Ox as my selection in this category but he was not nominated. Of the others, I either do not know enough about them or did not view their nomination in this category as appropriate; ergo, no vote was given.
Most Spiritual Blog: Pontifications
My Dominican biases prevents me from voting for a specific kind of spirituality almost as a kind of self-recusal. Al Kimel's weblog is spiritual as well as intellectual -a kind of bridge if you will of fides et ratio and to a significant enough degree that a vote for him here is one I have no problem making.
Best Social/Political Commentary Catholic Blog*: Rerum Novarum
There were very few nominated here who deserved to be and Southern Appeal (whom I would have voted for if they had been nominated) was not. Therefore, I voted for my own weblog here and objectively would put my contributions in this area in the areas of creativity, originality, prescience on issues, and overall applicability in this category against anyone else's.
Anyway, that is how I voted in these "awards" and why. As usual, comments, criticisms, or whatever are welcome as long as they are reasonably intelligent.
To start with, some of these categories are far too normative or subjective by nature in the absence of any way to verify emperically the subject matter being "voted" on. I will note those categories and separate them from those which -while admitting of some normative factors nonetheless are more easily able to be assessed by emperical data and thus be considered to a greater degree non-normative - categories with a * include this humble weblog as a nominee:
Smartest Catholic Blog*
Best Overall Catholic Blog*
Best New Catholic Blog
Funniest Catholic Blog
The reason I say they are much more normative is that they have factors that are overall not emperically verifiable. Other than one involving humour (and this is an area where different temperaments find different things funny; ergo non-normative standards do not apply) and the new blog factor (meaning: less than a year), the other factors are not objectively discernable without a degree of personal bias making the matter suspect. Nonetheless, here are my votes and the reasons why I voted as I did:
Smartest Catholic Blog: Sacramentum Vitae
Intelligence requires a degree of manifested learning but there is also the issue of creativity and originality of thought. I always place a high premium on these areas but not in and of themselves. And I have to admit it, by any criteria in which this is judged, most of those in this category did not deserve to be nominated. However, of the few that did I went with Dr. Michael Liccone's blog because (i) I respect his intellectual acumen even when we do not agree, (ii) Dr. Philip Blosser (Pertinacious Papist) somehow was not nominated here, (iii) Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) did not blog this year enough for consideration, and (iv) I am loathe to vote for myself if that is reasonably feasible. And with all those factors in mind, Sacramentum Vitae stands out in bold relief from the others on this list and therefore gets my vote.
Best Overall Catholic Blog: Eve Tushnet
Chris Blosser's blog has more stuff of a various degree connected with it; ergo if he was nominated here he would get my vote. But as(i) he was not, (ii) I am not familiar with many of these nominees, (iii) as I am not about to vote for myself, (iv) Eve Tushnet's blog deserved to be nominated for stuff a long time ago and was not, and (v) as she covers a lot of subjects on her blog and therefore is to a certain extent eclectic enough to qualify for an overall categorization, she gets my vote for this category.
Best New Catholic Blog: An Examined Life
Determining what is or is not "best" smacks of a normative nature that is undeniable. However, in picking Dr. Scott Carson's blog, I do so for his rounded intellectual acumen. I believe this is an area which does not get enough play in society in general and if I were to base "best" on spirituality factors, it would boil down to individual preferences and I am as susceptible to my own biases colouring my objectivity there as anyone else's. In a non-normative sense, intelligence is capable of to some degree being ascertained and in this area, Dr. Scott Carson's work stands out in several impressive respects. He therefore gets my vote here both for what he writes on and the contributions he makes to improving overall intelligence and understanding: important and often-overlooked assets but ones that your host takes seriously himself and therefore wants to recognize it in others who act in like manner.
Funniest Catholic Blog: The Curt Jester
There are some funny blogs out there but Jeff's stuff is the most original and creative: two important criteria for me when voting in any subject matter whatsoever. Of honourable mention here is Dale Price's Dyspeptic Mutterings.
Best Individual Catholic Blog*: Dyspeptic Musings
This is far too subjective a subject matter. I readily admit that I am not familiar with many of the blogs here and do not have time to inform myself to make the most educated of judgments. I did not want to vote for myself, and I could find no other category where Dale Price was nominated where he was at best not a definite bridesmaid and not the bride (and at worst did not deserve nomination); ergo I voted for Dale Price's blog in this category.
Here are the ones which are more emperically verifiable (read: non-normative) and thus easier to give an emperical assessment thereof.
Best Written Catholic Blog*: No Vote Given
How do we determine a subject matter such as this in an emperically verifiable fashion??? The truth is, we do not unless everyone is subjected to precise analyses and those who do not follow proper diction, grammar, sentence structure, variety of vocabulary utilized, and other factors on a consistent enough basis are eliminated. To do that would be to disqualify a lot of candidates including yours truly as I am unaware of anyone who writes perfectly in the blog format. If Ian Mclean (Secret Agent Man's Dossier) was blogging in 2006 and nominated here, he would get my vote but he was not. In truth, this is generally far too subjective a subject matter, I was not familiar with many of the blogs, and I did not want to vote for myself; ergo in the absence of others I would have voted for if they were nominated, I did not register a vote here.
Best Designed Catholic Blog: Scripture and Catholic Tradition
I know next to nothing about blog design viz. what is the best or not. However, I do know that Dr. Philip Blosser (who should have been nominated in other categories but was not) has a weblog that is well designed. The reason for this is that his son Christopher Blosser designed it -Chris and I have discussed design possibilities for this weblog and I am aware of his talents here which are significant. But much as a leader receives credit for ideas not necessarily their own, in this case Dr. Blosser as owner of the weblog nominated would get the nod.
I do not know about many of the others and out of the ones more easily verifiable emperically I am admittedly on the weakest ground trying to substantiate this selection. I also have a number of personal disagreements with Dr. Blosser on issues despite respecting his brobdingnagian intellectual acumen. But that is not the issue of question here, only the design of the weblog. And certainly his subsidiary weblog (Pertinacious Papist is his main weblog) deserves nomination in a few categories where it was not recognized. For the reasons noted above, it gets my vote however tenuous admittedly in lieu of my general ignorance of more technical design criteria of weblogs.
Best Apologetic Blog: Jimmy Akin
Once again, if we are looking for those who do apologetics at least on a reasonable enough basis to be nominated here, the list of worthies for this subject is small indeed. Out of all of them -and of those I am actually reasonably familiar with- Jimmy Akin, David Armstrong, Jacob Michael, and Al Kimel (Pontifications) are the most obvious ones belonging in this category. I voted for Jimmy Akin even though I have noted some issues I have with him in the past year. I doubt anyone nominated in this category (even those who belong here) could quibble much with that selection so that is all I will say about it.
Best Blog by a Clergy/Religious/Seminarian: Thrown Back
Of those I am familiar with, Fr. Rob Johansen's most impresses me in overall content; ergo he received my vote.
Best Group Blog: Catholic Light
I would have voted for Southern Appeal but they were not nominated again. For that reason, and because I honestly am not familiar with many of these blogs, I voted for Catholic Light.
Best Insider News Catholic Blog: No Vote Given
I was looking for Dumb Ox as my selection in this category but he was not nominated. Of the others, I either do not know enough about them or did not view their nomination in this category as appropriate; ergo, no vote was given.
Most Spiritual Blog: Pontifications
My Dominican biases prevents me from voting for a specific kind of spirituality almost as a kind of self-recusal. Al Kimel's weblog is spiritual as well as intellectual -a kind of bridge if you will of fides et ratio and to a significant enough degree that a vote for him here is one I have no problem making.
Best Social/Political Commentary Catholic Blog*: Rerum Novarum
There were very few nominated here who deserved to be and Southern Appeal (whom I would have voted for if they had been nominated) was not. Therefore, I voted for my own weblog here and objectively would put my contributions in this area in the areas of creativity, originality, prescience on issues, and overall applicability in this category against anyone else's.
Anyway, that is how I voted in these "awards" and why. As usual, comments, criticisms, or whatever are welcome as long as they are reasonably intelligent.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(On The Illogical Approach of Socialists)
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
(On The Illogical Approach of Socialists)
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: From The Law (circa 1850)]
Sunday, February 11, 2007
On the St. Blogs' "Awards" for 2006:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester{1} recently noted that there are some differences in this year's St. Blog's "Awards" event. The question of course is if they are going to have some committee again deciding which of the nominees are "sufficiently Catholic" or not. That is what they did last year and frankly it is absurd: someone either is or is not Catholic. And that is what should be considered, not how many genuflections one makes to various forms of popular piety, how many "atta boys" are given to the Holy Father, how much is focused on any one area of subject matter, or whatever. And if such an idea is again implemented, than what is the use since it is no different than a political intrigue and not a genuine voting process???
There is (of course) a disturbing pattern I have noted in past years of nominating people for categories they have no business being nominated in. I remember in 2004 being nominated for "best social commentary" with two other blogs which were worthy of that ranking and two which had no business being there. I explained this at the time and fortunately one of the others which deserved to be there won -referring to the recently shut down Southern Appeal who would be my vote for the 2006 category{2} if I was going to bother with such things.
As it is, I reiterate last year's predictions (on which I went 3-0) and have no doubts I will be vindicated again on at least two of them. I also harbour no illusions about being nominated for anything this year if I was not last year -particularly with a certain committee presuming to decide on whether my blog is sufficiently "Catholic" or not on normative critieria{3} which is absurd. Social commentary awards should not go to those who involve themselves in boilerplate unspectacular "commentary" as it has in years past or downright shoddy "commentary" absent a proper Catholic sensibility and mindset.{4}
But as I said, I doubt I would be nominated this year if I was not last year{5} and am not sure I want to be anyway. Hopefully though, those who are nominated for categories actually belong in the categories they are nominated in -otherwise this whole thing is a joke. On "social commentary", if Mark Shea wins again, then we know the quality of these "awards" is pretty low fare. At the very least a weblog like Southern Appeal (which won for 2004 and which closed up shop in late 2006) deserves recognition in that area. So too does some kind of "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" where the late Gerard Seraphin (God rest his soul) is recognized for the body of work he contributed over the years he was in cyberspace. I would give the "best blog by a woman" to Amy Welborn. Most humourous belongs as an institution of sorts to Jeff Miller as no one else is so repeatedly hilarious in original ways as he is. "Best apologetics blog" will probably go to Jimmy Akin and if it does, at least he deserves to be in that category.
Now Mark Shea will probably win for "best blog by a man" -and whatever the merits or demerits of that may be, at the very least he could qualify for that category legitimately. But to give his misinformed babblings on social issues a "best social commentary" award would be as silly as giving a non-Catholic a "best theological" award in a Catholic awards show -oh wait, that was done back in 2004.{6} I realize these are a kind of game and that is fine in and of itself but remember folks: people will judge the quality of St. Blogs overall by who wins in these categories. And whatever one thinks of certain parties, there are some categories that different people can fit into and some which they cannot.
Hopefully things will run better this time in many ways if only because it could rehabilitate the process to some extent. But I am not too optimistic{7} that it will avoid the problems in past years.
Notes:
{1} One of the few Catholic blogs which generally deserves the categories in which it is regularly nominated (and wins) in I might add.
{2} By the way, I figured in early 2005 if I lost to either Southern Appeal or Dust in the Light that at least I would have been beaten by a blog that deserved consideration in that category. The same would not have been the case for the others nominated that year which finished ahead of me -nothing against them personally, only that the category of nomination ("best social commentary") they did not have any business being in.
{3} For example, how often do I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, how many religious symbols are on my blog page, how often I deal in apologetics-style material, how often I take up for certain committee-approved "causes", etc.
{4} As what happened last year.
{5} Actually I was as the one who nominated me told me. Apparently I did not do enough of what is noted in footnote three to make it to the stage of being considered a "finalist" for voting. (And you can be sure I will do nothing this year differently so there is the answer in a nutshell.)
{6} The winner that year should not have even been nominated in a Catholic award show as he was not at the time Catholic. Though since that time, Alvin Kimel has won the award legitimately (read: after becoming Catholic) and if he were to win it again this time, I would have no objections to it.
{7} Ergo, I renew my predictions from last year and expect to go 2-1 this time instead of 3-0 as I did previously.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
Jeff Miller of The Curt Jester{1} recently noted that there are some differences in this year's St. Blog's "Awards" event. The question of course is if they are going to have some committee again deciding which of the nominees are "sufficiently Catholic" or not. That is what they did last year and frankly it is absurd: someone either is or is not Catholic. And that is what should be considered, not how many genuflections one makes to various forms of popular piety, how many "atta boys" are given to the Holy Father, how much is focused on any one area of subject matter, or whatever. And if such an idea is again implemented, than what is the use since it is no different than a political intrigue and not a genuine voting process???
There is (of course) a disturbing pattern I have noted in past years of nominating people for categories they have no business being nominated in. I remember in 2004 being nominated for "best social commentary" with two other blogs which were worthy of that ranking and two which had no business being there. I explained this at the time and fortunately one of the others which deserved to be there won -referring to the recently shut down Southern Appeal who would be my vote for the 2006 category{2} if I was going to bother with such things.
As it is, I reiterate last year's predictions (on which I went 3-0) and have no doubts I will be vindicated again on at least two of them. I also harbour no illusions about being nominated for anything this year if I was not last year -particularly with a certain committee presuming to decide on whether my blog is sufficiently "Catholic" or not on normative critieria{3} which is absurd. Social commentary awards should not go to those who involve themselves in boilerplate unspectacular "commentary" as it has in years past or downright shoddy "commentary" absent a proper Catholic sensibility and mindset.{4}
But as I said, I doubt I would be nominated this year if I was not last year{5} and am not sure I want to be anyway. Hopefully though, those who are nominated for categories actually belong in the categories they are nominated in -otherwise this whole thing is a joke. On "social commentary", if Mark Shea wins again, then we know the quality of these "awards" is pretty low fare. At the very least a weblog like Southern Appeal (which won for 2004 and which closed up shop in late 2006) deserves recognition in that area. So too does some kind of "St. Blog's Hall of Fame" where the late Gerard Seraphin (God rest his soul) is recognized for the body of work he contributed over the years he was in cyberspace. I would give the "best blog by a woman" to Amy Welborn. Most humourous belongs as an institution of sorts to Jeff Miller as no one else is so repeatedly hilarious in original ways as he is. "Best apologetics blog" will probably go to Jimmy Akin and if it does, at least he deserves to be in that category.
Now Mark Shea will probably win for "best blog by a man" -and whatever the merits or demerits of that may be, at the very least he could qualify for that category legitimately. But to give his misinformed babblings on social issues a "best social commentary" award would be as silly as giving a non-Catholic a "best theological" award in a Catholic awards show -oh wait, that was done back in 2004.{6} I realize these are a kind of game and that is fine in and of itself but remember folks: people will judge the quality of St. Blogs overall by who wins in these categories. And whatever one thinks of certain parties, there are some categories that different people can fit into and some which they cannot.
Hopefully things will run better this time in many ways if only because it could rehabilitate the process to some extent. But I am not too optimistic{7} that it will avoid the problems in past years.
Notes:
{1} One of the few Catholic blogs which generally deserves the categories in which it is regularly nominated (and wins) in I might add.
{2} By the way, I figured in early 2005 if I lost to either Southern Appeal or Dust in the Light that at least I would have been beaten by a blog that deserved consideration in that category. The same would not have been the case for the others nominated that year which finished ahead of me -nothing against them personally, only that the category of nomination ("best social commentary") they did not have any business being in.
{3} For example, how often do I quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, how many religious symbols are on my blog page, how often I deal in apologetics-style material, how often I take up for certain committee-approved "causes", etc.
{4} As what happened last year.
{5} Actually I was as the one who nominated me told me. Apparently I did not do enough of what is noted in footnote three to make it to the stage of being considered a "finalist" for voting. (And you can be sure I will do nothing this year differently so there is the answer in a nutshell.)
{6} The winner that year should not have even been nominated in a Catholic award show as he was not at the time Catholic. Though since that time, Alvin Kimel has won the award legitimately (read: after becoming Catholic) and if he were to win it again this time, I would have no objections to it.
{7} Ergo, I renew my predictions from last year and expect to go 2-1 this time instead of 3-0 as I did previously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)