People Who Refuse to Read What J. K. Rowling Writes about People Who are Transgender Hate Her for her Writings.

This Tweet and others by John Cleese on transgender issues are eye-opening and raise an important point. This can be confirmed quickly by cruising Twitter. Numerous people refuse to read what J. K. Rowling writes about people who are transgender, yet they hate her for what she supposedly said. This is even more distressing than the large number of people who read only headlines before responding to posts or sharing the entire article. "59 percent of all links shared on social networks aren’t actually clicked on at all, implying the majority of article shares aren’t based on actual reading." I've seen it repeatedly on Twitter that Woke Folk claim that Rowling has said things that she never said.  Tweets by or about Abigail Shrier draw hate from the same crowd (and from large media outlets), most of whom claim that she is "anti trans," when 1) there is no evidence of this and 2) Shrier's book, Irreversible Damage, focuses only on teenagers who are undergoing surgery and hormone treatment based upon self-diagnosis and without the benefit of any counseling in an attempt to change their gender. 

Continue ReadingPeople Who Refuse to Read What J. K. Rowling Writes about People Who are Transgender Hate Her for her Writings.

What is an Explanation? Why is it Important to Explore this Topic?

I majored in philosophy many years ago and I found this field of study, in equal parts, exciting and frustrating. Far too often, it seemed like an exercise in semantics. I found most articles in traditional philosophical journals to be tedious, pedantic, hair-splitting and boring. That said, some of the most hotly debated controversies in philosophy are alive and well. For instance, the philosophy of science is a field rife with simple-looking terms that turn out to be extremely fraught. One of those terms is "explanation." What is an "explanation?" During a cognitive science seminar at Washington University, I once asked Philosopher Andy Clark how to distinguish "descriptions" from "explanations." Clark wryly replied: "An explanation is a description that makes you feel good."

Why is the proper definition of explanation so important?  Because many of our current (non-philosophical) debates stalemate over whether the other side has adequately "explained" something. So how can we determine whether someone has properly "explained" something?

Philosopher of science Bas Van Fraassen wrote that an explanation is an answer—an informative description evaluated pursuant to the context established by a particular question—a request for a specific kind of information.  That makes intuitive sense to me, but the devil is in the details. Because we often attempt to explain things in terms of causation, the topic of "explanation" has a large overlap with "causation." Many philosophical luminaries have grappled with "causation," including David Hume ("constant conjunction"), Karl Popper and Nicholas Tinbergen (who offers four types of causation). Upstarts Mark Johnson and George Lakoff have pain-stakingly analyzed causation in terms of conceptual metaphors and their entailments, concluding that causation is:

a radial category of extraordinary complexity. In that complex radial category, there is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that covers all the cases of causation. Therefore, causation as we conceptualize it is not a unified phenomenon. It does not simply designate an objectively existing category of phenomena, defined by necessary and sufficient conditions and operating with a single logic in the mind-independent world.

In short, Johnson and Lakoff indicate that "causation" is not one simple thing. Far from it. Lakoff further elaborates:

The science and the social sciences all use causal theories, but the metaphors for causation can vary widely and thus so can the kinds of causal inferences you can draw. Again, there is nothing wrong with this. You just have to realize that causation is not just one thing. There are many kinds of modes of causation, each with different logical inferences, that physical, social, and cognitive scientists attribute to reality using different metaphors for causation. Again, it is important to know which metaphor for causation you are using. Science cannot be done without metaphors of all sorts, starting with a choice of metaphors for causation. Most interestingly, if you look at the history of philosophy, you will find a considerable number of "theories of causation." When we looked closely at the philosophical theories of causation over the centuries, they all turned out to be one or another of our commonplace metaphors for causation. What philosophers have done is to pick their favorite metaphor for causation and put it forth as an eternal truth.

Why am I writing about these topics? Again, getting a grasp on the meaning and function of "explanations" has repercussions far beyond philosophy and far beyond science. It is relevant every time any person makes a claim. This includes political and moral claims. Getting clear on the meaning and function of "explanations" relate to most of the words that come out of your mouth whenever you are trying to be "serious."

The above ideas have been my starting points for exploring this topic of the functions of explanations. For years, I have been working on a much longer analysis of these critically important ideas.

To be continued . . .

Continue ReadingWhat is an Explanation? Why is it Important to Explore this Topic?

What is a Cult? Descriptions from Cult Education Institute

There's a lot of accusations that Americans on both the political right and left are now members of "Cults." What exactly is a cult? After doing a bit of research, I found these helpful descriptions / definitions / traits of Cult Leaders and their followers from the Cult Education Institute. The following material is from the CEI webpage titled "Warning Signs":

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Ten warning signs regarding people involved in/with a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
  2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
  3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
  4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
  5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
  6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
  7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
  8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
  9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
  10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

Continue ReadingWhat is a Cult? Descriptions from Cult Education Institute