Recognizing and Escaping from Kafka Traps

Until now, I didn't realize there was a name a peculiar type of argument, but from now on I will recognize it as a "Kafka Trap":

In The Trial, Kafka presents a totalitarian world where a man is arrested by unspecified authorities and accused of an unspecified crime. Kafka traps occurs when people are accused of something but their denials are interpreted as absolute proof that the accusation is true. For example,

You are an liar!"
"No I am not."
"That proves it. Liars always deny they are liars!"

Kafka Traps seem to work because they are circular, thus evidence-free, thus unfalsifiable. You can expose the fallaciousness of Kafka Traps by making some simple substitutions, e.g.,:

"You are a jelly donut!"
"No, I am not."
"That proves it. Jelly donuts always deny they are jelly donuts!"

Now consider this argument:

" You are a racist!"
"No, I am not."
"That proves it.  Racists always deny they are racists!"

This argument that all white people are racists has been employed by Robin DiAngelo:

Yes, all white people are complicit with racism. There will be umbrage and upset. People will insist that they are not racist. That I don't know them ... 'I've traveled a lot. I speak lots of languages ... I had a Black roommate in college. I'm a minority myself.' This is the kind of evidence that many white people used to exempt themselves from that system. It's not possible to be exempt from it.

These Kafka Traps are fact-free pseudo-arguments that remind me of St. Anselm's alleged proof for the existence of God ("That than which nothing greater can be conceived") and St. Thomas Aquinas' Contingency proof for the existence of God ("even if the Universe has always existed, it still owes its existence to an uncaused cause. The only thing missing from these three fallacious arguments is the word "Abracadabra!"

To escape a Kafka Trap, you can also demand evidence for these extraordinary claims, then (after no evidence is produced) invoke Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

If you are facing an evidence-free claim that you are a racist, simply flip the argument 180 by substituting "maker of false accusations" for "racist":

"You are a maker of false accusations!"
"No, I am not."
"That proves it. Makers of false accusations always deny they are makers of false accusations!"

Continue ReadingRecognizing and Escaping from Kafka Traps

Today’s Insanity, Twitter’s Response

There's so much intellectual incoherence and outright insanity out there in the world. Yes, Twitter is a double-edged sword, but I've been hanging in there these days, using Twitter to help keep my head from exploding. But I'm also having this recurring thought: "If there is a God, I'm assuming that He/She/They are about to hit the reboot button for the universe." Here's a few of today's Twitter happenings:

In reaction to the Trump unhinged and xenophobic speech in Tulsa, "The Lincoln Project" tweeted: "Donald Trump told his administration to slow down testing. Now, 122,000 Americans are dead and coronavirus is rising in dozens of states. This is his legacy."

The rapper Zuby tweeted this response after learning about the "Black Only" zone being maintained in CHAZ/CHOP, Seattle: "Because racial segregation is obviously progressive."

Because we apparently have the inalienable right to tear down public art that offends us, Shaun King (1M followers) tweets: "All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down. They are a gross form white supremacy. Created as tools of oppression. Racist propaganda. They should all come down." That leads to this tweet by Finbad the Failer: "You want to destroy religious objects? Does this include Michaelanangelo’s Pieta and other masterpieces from the Renaissance?"

Finally, on Twitter today I learned that Author James R. Flynn was about to publish his newest book, "In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor," in which he "critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how academics censor themselves." Well, Flynn's book was cancelled by the publisher because, according to the publisher, the book might stir up too much trouble. Claire Lehmann (Founding Editor of Quillette) tweets: "For those unaware of who Flynn is: he is the strongest critic of what's called the "hereditarian hypothesis," and the discoverer of the Flynn effect (the observed increase of IQ scores across generations, likely due to improved nutrition & education)."

Continue ReadingToday’s Insanity, Twitter’s Response

Joe Rogan Discusses the Protests/Rioting with Bret Weinstein

Good food for thought when Bret Weinstein sits down with Joe Rogan to discuss the protests and the civil unrest. I haven't been buying the standard line that these sustained protests are driven completely by the homicide of George Floyd. That horrific incident is certainly what triggered the demonstrations. However, the duration and intensity of the unrest , the organic "leaderless" groundswell, the unfocused attacks on virtually every American institution (including universities and STEM) and the unhinged demands (e.g., where "defund the police" doesn't actually mean defund the police) have convinced me this unrest is about far more than police abuses. Weinstein believes that many Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (he supported this movement) turned to anarchy and have now combined with the many demonstrators who fall under the Black Lives Matter umbrella, as well as other participants.

Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist living in exile from Evergreen State with his wife, Heather Heying, also an evolutionary biologist. These two biologists somehow survived intact the abysmal failure of Evergreen to deal with its own unrest in 2016, an incident that gives Weinstein a unique perspective on the ongoing crisis. In the first 30 minutes of this podcast, Weinstein and Rogan focus on the failures of BOTH political parties to represent the interests of the American working class. Ever since Bill Clinton, both parties have catered almost exclusively to the needs of their "clients," large corporations, which have rigged the game to screw small business and working people. This trend of catering to big corporations and screwing workers has continued under the current administration. One result of this: Widespread joblessness and hopelessness in both big cities and small that is now exploding on the streets.   This economic misery has hurt minorities living in urban areas especially hard, exacerbating their many concerns about institutional racism. Weinstein sees no short term or long term solution to this mess given the complete lack of political leadership, especially from the White House.

Continue ReadingJoe Rogan Discusses the Protests/Rioting with Bret Weinstein

Undeniable Research: Cities Are Safer With More Police Officers

What is the relationship between the numbers of police on the street and rate of violent crime? In a recent Vox article, "The End of Policing left me convinced we still need policing," Matthew Yglesias offers some real numbers to counter rampant speculation we are hearing from the many people who are understandably upset with police misconduct. His conclusion: "One of the most robust, most uncomfortable findings in criminology is that putting more officers on the street leads to less violent crime.” Therefore, if you want to increase violent crime in rich and poor neighborhoods alike, simply remove police officers. Here are some specific cases summarized by Yglesias:

"Klick, John MacDonald, and Ben Grunwald looked at an episode when the University of Pennsylvania had its campus police increase patrols within its defined zone of Philadelphia, and used a regression discontinuity design to discover that crime fell about 60 percent (this time with a larger decline for violent crime) where the extra officers went.

Stephen Mello looked at a huge surge in federal funding for local police staffing associated with the 2009 stimulus bill. Exploiting quasi-random variation in which cities got grants, Mello showed that compared to cities that missed out, those that made the cut ended up with police staffing levels that were 3.2 percent higher and crime levels that were 3.5 percent lower — again with a larger drop in violent crime.

John MacDonald, Jeffrey Fagan, and Amanda Geller looked at a program in New York called Operation Impact that would surge additional officers into high-crime neighborhoods and found that a wide range of crime — assaults, robberies, burglaries, violent felonies, violent property crimes, and misdemeanor offenses — fell in response to the surge.

Richard Rosenfeld’s field experiments show that “hot spot” policing, where extra officers go to specific high-crime locations, not only reduces crime in the hot spots but reduces crime (in this case, specifically gun assaults) citywide.

Patrick Sharkey, a Princeton sociologist who is clearly sympathetic to the goals of the defunding movement, writes in a Washington Post piece arguing for a greater role for local leaders and communities in containing violence that “those who argue that the police have no role in maintaining safe streets are arguing against lots of strong evidence."

Continue ReadingUndeniable Research: Cities Are Safer With More Police Officers