Newsgroups: alt.callahans

In alt.callahans, sjane@bmers248.bnr.ca (sjs) writes:

> Wow, you folks are optomistic!  Me, I believe that people must be taught how
> to reason, how to think logically, how to separate propaganda from facts.

The fundamental problem here is that outside the realm of science (hard
physical science) fact and propoganda are almost totally inseperable.
Propoganda can be entirely made up of fact, but it may be fact
with a selective awareness.  I, myself, for example, would suggest
that all history is propoganda.
> 
> There is a story that a professor in England wrote a book on how to defend
> oneself agains propaganda and further, how to teach others to see through
> it. 

This is nice, but again, seeing through propoganda in historic and
social discourse is probably not actually possible.  Being aware
that you are being subjected to a propoganda may be all that IS
possible.

> The story continues that this was near the time of the 2nd world war
> and the government suppressed the book.  I cannot say whether or not this
> story is true, but I do think that it is likely.  A populace which can be
> easily swayed it much more useful to a government at war than one which 
> can think and reason.  

Thinking and reasoning is NOT proof against being swayed.  Many
perfectly rational people get swayed by propoganda.]

> 
> And yes, I think a good ad compaign can convince the ignorant of anything.

And it can convince the learned of much, but I would agree that
ignorance makes people more vulnerabel to out and out lies.

> If you know nothing about a subject, how can you tell if an ad is portraying
> the truth or not? 

What is truth?  Uh oh, here comes the relativistic morality string again.

> If you do not know how to reason logically, how can you
> see through faulty arguments, how can you separate mere assertions from 
> logical deductions?

Nonsense.  Descartes knew how to argue rationally, and he still used
a circular argument to prove the existence of God.  The rational
mind is not sufficient.  It may be necessary, but it is not sufficient.

> 
> And no, I do not think that most people know their own reasons for doing
> or believing something.  Yes, most people at Callahans likely do -- we
> all are somewhat introspective or we wouldn't be in this group, but what
> about your basic man-on-the-street?  (Nope, I don't have facts to back
> up my belief here, just vague memories of asking people why they did/thought
> something and getting, 'I dunno' as an answer.)

Fact fact fact.  The older I become the more I realize that fact is
frequently in the eye of the beholder.  One man's manifest destiny
is another man's genocide.

> Now, all this doesn't mean that I'm in favour of censoring, but rather
> that I'm in favour of teaching, really teaching, how to think logically,
> how to see through rhetoric and how to see through propaganda.  I think
> this should be taught *early* on in school so that little kids can disect
> ads & laugh at their proposals instead of being swayed by them.  And I
> think it should be repeated later so that young adults can spot
> a politician's or a lawyer's debating tricks.

And you think that this learning will not be affected by a hidden
agenda, a propoganda of its own.  You are optimistic.  If fact,
truth, rationality, and the ability to penetrate propoganda were
the panacea you suggest, then all logical and intelligent people
would believe more or less the same thing.  They do not.
You are placing too much faith in your icons.

> 
doug
Newsgroups: alt.callahans