Islamic Terror, brainwashing, new thoughts.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Not quite sure what you are saying here I'm afraid. Is this another way of saying that my argument is circular somehow?

 

No, not circular, but guilty of other logical fallacies.

 

1) Affirming the consequent.

 

If explanations for terrorism create terrorism, then terrorism will exist. Terrorism exists. Therefore explanation creates terrorism.

 

2) Appeal to consequences

 

If explanations for terrorism create terrorism, then terrorism will exist. Terrorism is bad. Therefore explanations for terrorism are also bad.

 

PERVERSE THOUGH IT MAY BE, if a potential feels a personal victim of a conflict in a far away land, he might actually justify the act of walking into a pizza parlor AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN HIS OWN MIND.

 

Your claim here appears to be that any explanation of terrorism that doesn't load it's explanation up with anti-terrorism phraseology is a tacit endorsement.

 

In this conception sentences like -

 

"Terrorism is a method used by some people to achieve political aims." amount to an endorsement of terrorism.

 

Similarly if I say "You may be mugged on the street tomorrow." And you are in fact mugged on the street tomorrow, I haven't suggested to anyone that you be mugged, I have made a statement of fact.

 

If I say "Terrorists may blow up buildings tomorrow in Iraq" I haven't suggest to them to try it, I have made a prediction.

 

In any case, you are defending a dubious assertion - that neutral explanation amounts to endorsement.

 

To turn it on it's head, aren't you in fact "demonizing" your opponent by trying to portray their position as tantamount to endorsing terrorism. Isn't this a complex form of "No True Scotsman?" since you are redefining what it means to "support terrorism?"

 

Sort of like "Your language about terrorism is insufficiently negative - therefore you must support terrorism?" (Or as you said - CAUSE terrorism.)

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

First, I would like to say that I thought your last post was very good. It seems to me that you have gone past the 'understanding' phrase and are now actually challenging it at the scientific level. QP

 

Is this another way of saying that my argument is circular somehow?

 

No, not circular, but guilty of other logical fallacies.

 

1) Affirming the consequent.

 

If explanations for terrorism create terrorism, then terrorism will exist. Terrorism exists. Therefore explanation creates terrorism.

 

2) Appeal to consequences

 

If explanations for terrorism create terrorism, then terrorism will exist. Terrorism is bad. Therefore explanations for terrorism are also bad.

 

First I would like to say that this theory is still in it's early days and I have not dotted every i and crossed every t. Clearly, if it is to survive as a, nay, the, scientifically correct explanation for the causes of Islamic terror and perhaps even all extremism, each i and t must at some stage be dotted and crossed. But just because we come accross an apparent 'twin paradox' that cannot be easily resolved at first does not mean it is a fundamental flaw.

 

So you may wish to help me find answers to some of your questions because I am not infinately intelligent.

 

1) I'm not sure that's how it works. First, a disclaimer. I'm not saying explanations for terrorism NECESSARILY create terrorism. Only if it is phrased in a way that contains [what I call] hypnotic suggestions into acts of violence.

 

But ignoring the disclaimer, what I am saying is 'if explanations for terrorism create terrorism, therefore if there are explanations, there will be terror.' That terror exists is irrelivent. The existance of terror is a PREDICTION of the mechanism and not a NECESSARY STARTING CONDITION. So you could say that the existance of terror is scientific evidence supporting my mechanism. But that isn't surprising since the entire purpose of the mechanism is to explain how terrorism occurs and it wouldn't be a very good mechanism if, at the end, it didn't predict terror.

 

It's like the way scientists try to find the mechanism of a chemical reaction they know occurs. They go to the atoms and electrons and bonding orbitals and try to work out which electrons go where. But if at the end of that, they end up with a mechanism that does not predict / allow the reaction they know to occur to occur, it can't be a good scientific mechanism.

 

2) Is a good question but it is not what I am saying.

I'm not saying the explanation or rather, all explanations are 'bad'. Infact some arguments that contain a menace by hypnotic suggestion may not actually be bad in themselves.

 

But I am saying they do cause terror and terror is bad. Therefore, even though the argument is not necessarily bad, if we want to avoid it's bad effects, we must confront it none the less.

 

So 'If explanations for terrorism create terrorism, then terrorism will exist. Terrorism is bad. Therefore explanations for terrorism, not bad in themselves, can cause bad things.

 

PERVERSE THOUGH IT MAY BE, if a potential feels a personal victim of a conflict in a far away land, he might actually justify the act of walking into a pizza parlor AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IN HIS OWN MIND.

 

Your claim here appears to be that any explanation of terrorism that doesn't load it's explanation up with anti-terrorism phraseology is a tacit endorsement.

 

In this conception sentences like -

 

"Terrorism is a method used by some people to achieve political aims." amount to an endorsement of terrorism.

 

Quite right. I wasn't happy with that sentence because I felt that my loaded terms would get in the way of the point I was making. I was trying to get rid of the demonisation contained within the argument. But I think my version, instead of sending hypnotic suggestions ENCOURAGING terror now sent hypnotic suggestions DISCOURAGING terror. Nevertheless a hypnotic suggestion free version would be sufficient for the purposes in my view.

 

"Terrorism is a method used by some people to achieve political aims.".

 

This contains no hypnotic suggestions I can see and so would not be a cause of terror.

 

Similarly if I say "You may be mugged on the street tomorrow." And you are in fact mugged on the street tomorrow, I haven't suggested to anyone that you be mugged, I have made a statement of fact.

 

I can see what you have done here. Yes a hypnotic suggestion is being sent, but you have got the MESSAGE of that hypnotic suggestion wrong.

 

What you are doing is to send the hypnotic suggestion to me that I WILL BE MUGGED on the street tomorrw. If, in consequence, I decide not to go out tomorrow, then your hypnotic suggestion may have caused it. If I act scared or worried on the streets, then your hypnotic suggestion may have caused it. The only way that your hypnotic suggestion could CAUSE me to actually be mugged (rather than me just fearing irrationally being mugged) is if that irrational fear causes muggers to see me as an easy victim.

 

If I say, 'you might want to avoid tripping up on your feet' you become very self conscious of tripping up, which, together in your mind, may increase the chances of you actually tripping up slightly, but will certainly make you self conscious about the way you walk.

 

So one has to analyse not just WHETHER a hypnotic suggestion is being sent but THE MESSAGE being sent by that hypnotic suggestion and WHAT EFFECT that message may have on the listener.

 

If I say "Terrorists may blow up buildings tomorrow in Iraq" I haven't suggest to them to try it, I have made a prediction.

 

That's the difficulty. You have done both. You are most right. But what happens if you are the presidant of America and you read that and sombody from Al Quaeda in their cave in Afghanistan reads it and he has not actually thought of it. He could very easily say 'hey, what a good idea'. I think it would be irresponsible for such a statement by the president to be made.

 

To see what I mean, imagine the president saying, 'the terrorists may' and then he goes on to describe an extremely dangerous plan in minute detail that they may or may not have thought of that is almost impossible for the country to stop.

 

The reason, though, why your sentence is harmless is because it is so blatently obvious that there is no chance that some fanatic, or even moderate, would not have thought about it on their own.

 

In any case, you are defending a dubious assertion - that neutral explanation amounts to endorsement.

 

That's not my contention. As above, the explanation may or may not contain an endorsement. But an explanation may send undesired and unintended messages of endorsement and worse, insitement. The argument we've discussed above contains both.

 

To turn it on it's head, aren't you in fact "demonizing" your opponent by trying to portray their position as tantamount to endorsing terrorism. Isn't this a complex form of "No True Scotsman?" since you are redefining what it means to "support terrorism?"

 

I wouldn't consider Moderate Muslims as 'my opponent'. Also, "demonising" is not the right choice of words. There is a world of difference between "demonising" and legitimate criticism. And lastly, I'm not trying to portray that that is their position. I have no doubt that that is the position of some, but not most. Instead, I am saying they are consciously endorsing terror, only that they do not understand the messages that they are sending. They are doing it accidently and it could happen to anybody. Am I demonising clumsy joe if I say that the reason for his clumsiness is that his shoelaces always come untied and that he should get new laces?

 

Sort of like "Your language about terrorism is insufficiently negative - therefore you must support terrorism?" (Or as you said - CAUSE terrorism.)

That isn't my contention either. Causing terror is not the same as Supporting terror. And would having a more negative language about terror change the nature of the hypnotic suggestions contained within their arguments? I don't know. I will have to think about that. Perhaps you could help?

 

But on a side issue, I do think that insufficiently negative language on terror is morally condemnable and can amount to a tacit endorsement.

 

If you don't believe me, then just look at Bush's statements on the war in Lebanon.

 

Or, if you killed a man, and I said, 'lets not get too critical. The man he killed was a bad man', then it is a tacit endorsement of the murder.

 

Or if you are in the middle of a Genocide and you see refugees looking for a safe place, and you know of a safe place, and you don't tell them, are you not endorsing their certain death?

[TheFaithfulStone]

ut ignoring the disclaimer, what I am saying is 'if explanations for terrorism create terrorism, therefore if there are explanations, there will be terror.'

 

If P then Q. Therefore if P then Q? Isn't that just a truism?

 

That doesn't really help.

 

The problem is that you haven't sufficiently defended your assertion. What evidence is there that explanations for terror actually create terror? Saying that terror exists is affirming the the consequent. You need different evidence.

 

So you could say that the existance of terror is scientific evidence supporting my mechanism.

 

No, it would be an affirmed consequent.

 

Ex: [from wikipedia]

If someone is human, they are mortal.

Anna is mortal.

Therefore Anna is human.

 

Anna MAY be human, but she may also be a cat. If terror exists it MAY be evidence of your mechanism, but it may be that terror is "caused" by a different mechanism.

 

"Terrorism is a method used by some people to achieve political aims.".

 

This contains no hypnotic suggestions I can see and so would not be a cause of terror.

 

What about that terrorism can in fact be used to achieve political aims, and not just as random, pointless, violence?

 

TFS

[pgrmdave]

Well, we should be able to, in a limited way, test the theory of explanation causing the thing it is explaining. Let's set up a thing that exists only in a lime, and start to explain it. If the idea of explanation causing the thing works, then we should have a bit of an effect. Since we are much more limited than the mass media, we need to work on a smaller scale, a more personal/local scale. So, let's choose something good (we don't want to cause destruction) and explain it in some way. Perhaps local volunteerism? Well, volunteerism is a reaction that some people have to a community that they see as in need of help. It both helps solve the problem, and it tends to make the volunteer feel better about themselves. If we were to, say, write an essay about the benefits of volunteerism, staying away from direct endorsements, and direct arguments in favor of such, and we were to distribute this essay throughout a community, would we see a noticable increase in the number of volunteers in a community, or would it stay the same?

[TheFaithfulStone]

But it wouldn't just need to be an essay about the benefits, but rather about why it is that some people volunteer.

 

Some people volunteer because it makes them feel good.

Some people volunteer because of religious reasons.

 

I think that could work. It would certainly back up the concept. Would it need to be tempered with things like "Some people do not volunteer because it costs money."

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

I very much like the direction this is taking. It seems to me that we are moving away from completely disregarding it on instinct and are moving onto the purpose of TESTING it for validity.

 

If I am wrong, fine, but at least I tried in an area where there are few satisfactory explanations.

 

Unfortunately pgrmdaves post was all in 1 long paragraph so I am going to have to try to seperate the stages of his plan myself and if I get it wrong, I appoligise.

 

Let's set up a thing that exists only in a lime, and start to explain it. If the idea of explanation causing the thing works, then we should have a bit of an effect.

 

I assume you mean "only in time". The explanation must be in the form of a hypnotic suggestion which encourages / justifies the act.

 

See the difference between TFS's original argument sending encouraging hypnotic suggestions, my argument sending discouraging hypnotic suggestions and TFS's neutral description sending very few hypnotic suggestions.

 

So our first task would be to get the phrasing of the argument correctly.

 

Further, the only way it can work is if it actually becomes PART OF THE DISCOURSE to the point that it is discussed at home regularly. This gives the REPETITIVE CONTACT WITH THE HYPNOTIC SUGGESTION which is absolutely necessary. This contact of course needs to be with the people who may actually purportrate the action.

 

I agree in your choice of target. Ideally, we would want to do the experiment so that if it works, it encourages people to do good acts. But writing an essay may not be enough to GET THE ARGUMENT INTO THE DISCOURSE. We might need a sustained advertising campaign. Posters nearby etc. Whatever it takes to get parents saying to their parents 'If I was well off and lived in a stable family and I realised how much other people are suffering, that might cause me to put in some volentary hours in the shelter'. And then those kids say it themselves to their friends, and the parents say it to their friends until you have a reasonable fraction of the intelligensia using that arguement.

 

So stage 2 is to advertise it to the point that it becomes part of the discourse of the community. The more it is part of the discourse, the more powerful influence it may be.

 

This I think will be the hardest stage to influence. I am as clueless as anybody else when it comes to making that happen and it may cost fortunes.

 

Stage 3 would be to measure the results in terms of more people volenteering.

 

It would need to be a fair sized swing because otherwise other factors may be the influence. We may also need to measure some how how far the arguement has been accepted into the every discourse of the community.

 

So in conclusion, because of the difficulties of getting arguments into the discourse, this experiment, though possible, would be exceedingly difficult for a few academics on a hypography forum. I'm happy to try so please tell me what you think about the difficulties expressed above and how you propose to solve them.

 

Instead, we could try and USE ARGUMENTS ALREADY IN THE DISCOURSE. To do that, we would again need to measure the discourse somehow. We could take a note of all the common arguments within that discourse by going onto the streets and debating with them until we've heard them all. Perhaps we could also intrude in dinner conversations as well? We could also put forward arguments we suspect as being in the discourse and seeing how people react (positively or negatively).

 

Then, once we have all the arguments, we go through them for hypnotic suggestions and see what we have. When we have one that sends a clear negitive message, we can check to see if that crime is more widespread in that culture than in others that do not include that hypnotic suggestion.

[pgrmdave]

;) I think I meant to type "only in a limited way"...but I'm not quite sure.

 

Instead, we could try and USE ARGUMENTS ALREADY IN THE DISCOURSE. To do that, we would again need to measure the discourse somehow. We could take a note of all the common arguments within that discourse by going onto the streets and debating with them until we've heard them all. Perhaps we could also intrude in dinner conversations as well? We could also put forward arguments we suspect as being in the discourse and seeing how people react (positively or negatively).

 

Then, once we have all the arguments, we go through them for hypnotic suggestions and see what we have. When we have one that sends a clear negitive message, we can check to see if that crime is more widespread in that culture than in others that do not include that hypnotic suggestion.

 

This is a good idea, but it might only end up showing correlation, not necessarily causation. By creating our own hypnotic suggestion, as you call it, we would be able to show definite causation. By finding ones already in existance, we would only be able to show that there was a correlation - we wouldn't necessarily know if there was a cause-effect relationship. Did you know that the more ice cream that is sold in New York City on a given day, the higher crime rate there is? It is a definite correlation, but would you argue for a causation?

[sebbysteiny]

Did you know that the more ice cream that is sold in New York City on a given day, the higher crime rate there is? It is a definite correlation, but would you argue for a causation?

 

It depends on how conclusive the statistical data is. Is it repeated in other cities? Is it a statistic made up on the spot?

 

But even if it is, then three things follow. Either ice cream causes crime, or crime causes ice cream, or something causes both ice cream and crime.

 

 

Now if we take a random theory that predicts statistical patterns from scratch, and we discover that the statistical patterns match the predictions of the theory, although PHILOSOPHICALLY we still can't prove conclusively the cause - effect relationship, in practice we have become a damn sight closer. After that, it is verging on the unthinkable to assume anything other than that relationship holds.

 

Correlation seems to me to be more than sufficient, at least for our purposes anyway. Afterall, if there is no correlation, then we have already resolved this argument.

 

I think I meant to type "only in a limited way"

 

I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic here, and how much effect on the discourse must one have for an influence to actually occur that is measurable and distinguishable from the fluctuations caused by randomness and other events? I would think quite a bit.

 

On a side topic, I've just realised how those 'anti smoking' ads the government sponsers might work. When smokers see them, they ignore them. But it's the none smokers who will really pay attention and this may bring these arguments into the discourse which will then in turn affect the smokers. Social manipulation at it's best.

 

Side topic over. How can we with our limited resourses sufficiently affect the discourse?

[TheFaithfulStone]

You suggestion still relies on an affirmed consequent sebby.

 

Daves suggestion is valid, but you almost have to introduce a "new" suggestion, in order to measure it.

 

BTW, you're right about how the "Truth" ads work. But I'm not sure that's the same mechanism you're talking about. The TA for those "Truth" was people who didn't smoke, not people who did - that's why they're so "cool" - because they're aimed at 13 and 14 year olds - most smokers start around 15 I think.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Daves suggestion is valid, but you almost have to introduce a "new" suggestion, in order to measure it.

 

Not quite sure what you mean here TFS. Are you saying that you agree Daves suggestions has difficulties in measuring the effects of his experiment?

 

In other words, was your use of the word "you" supposed to be "one" because I created a different suggestion.

 

You suggestion still relies on an affirmed consequent sebby.

 

Not sure I follow you. I am saying this.

 

1) Measure discourse.

2) Scour discourse for hypnotic suggestions.

3) Using the message of the hypnotic suggestion and the degree to which the moderate argument is accepted in the discourse, predict the likely amount effect of the extremism caused by that message.

4) Compare with the actual data and see if there is a correlation.

 

Which step in that affirms the consequent?

[pgrmdave]

[tangent]

 

most smokers start around 15 I think.

 

The figures I checked out online put the average age anywhere from 12 - 14.

 

[/tangent]

[sebbysteiny]

Am I right in saying that we all [those remaining in this thread] agree that my mechanism IS workable and possible and is not contradicted by any obvious facts or observations?

 

The only question is whether or not it is true which could require testing.

 

But until it is shown one way or another, because it is possible means it should be considered in any response to terror or we run the risk of targetting thin air or even possibly making the problem worse.

[pgrmdave]

I think that it is a possibility, but I don't know how much it should be considered. I think that it is more likely that the occurance of an action produces what you refer to rather than the other way around. I also think that there are many more pressures specifically against terrorism than neutral, or for it. For that reason, I wouldn't focus energy on it simply because it would have a more dramatic effect if we focused the energy somewhere else.

[TheFaithfulStone]

1) Measure discourse.

2) Scour discourse for hypnotic suggestions.

3) Using the message of the hypnotic suggestion and the degree to which the moderate argument is accepted in the discourse, predict the likely amount effect of the extremism caused by that message.

4) Compare with the actual data and see if there is a correlation.

 

It's step 3. If P then Q. Q, therefore P. The amount of extremism likely to be produced could be produced by some other factor. I don't know how you'd control those factors unless you specifically introduced a new "hypnotic suggestion." That is "suggest" something that hasn't occurred before. Then, see if it occurs.

 

You can only affirm the consequent if the syllogism is structured as If and only if P, then Q. The only way to figure that out would be to make sure that Q didn't occur if P didn't, but that it did occur if P did.

 

ut until it is shown one way or another, because it is possible means it should be considered in any response to terror or we run the risk of targetting thin air or even possibly making the problem worse.

 

It's a possibility, sure, but your assertion that because it's possible it must be accounted for is an example of the negative proof fallacy. (Or, the argument from ignorance.)

 

As it turns out, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. :)

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

It's step 3. If P then Q. Q, therefore P.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that the scientific method. Compare this with a previous scientific debate. Einstein had just proposed his general theory of relativity that predicted light bending. All other current theories did not. 5 years later the experiment was performed and light was proven to bend.

 

Now did that observation PROVE general relativity correct? No. It could have been caused by some other unknown reason.

 

But all of a sudden, it became the dominant theory accepted by all. Why? Because if a statistical connection is found between two factors, it does not suggest one is a cause of the other. But if a theory predicts a connection and that connection is later proven to exist, then that is extremely strong evidence that the theory was correct.

 

It's really just probabilities. What is the probability of random factor A being connected to random factor B? Extremely small. But if there is a theory predicting a connect between exactly those factors and such a connection is found, the probability of the connection existing entirely out of randomness is so small that the only realistic alternative, that the theory was correct, is by far the most likely explanation.

 

What I am proposing is measuring the discourse of some community and searching for hypnotic suggestions. Without knowing anything about the extremists of that community I then propose to predict the behavior of the extremists and their size. Then, I propose to check the predictions with reality.

 

This experiment can be repeated with a different community, and if it is found that our predictions closely resemble the actual character of the extremists, then it is almost certain that this theory is the cause.

 

I admit that pgrmDave's method (make a statement part of the discourse and measure effects of extreme minority) has the satisfaction of proving a connection with 100% accuracy.

 

But my one that is only valid to 99.9% accuracy is far cheaper and easier and may even be done by willing volenteers on a science forum.

 

Further, if no such connection between hypnotic suggestions in moderate discourse and extremism exists, then you can prove my theory wrong with 100% accuracy.

[sebbysteiny]

but until it is shown one way or another, because it is possible means it should be considered in any response to terror or we run the risk of targetting thin air or even possibly making the problem worse.

 

It's a possibility, sure, but your assertion that because it's possible it must be accounted for is an example of the negative proof fallacy. (Or, the argument from ignorance.)

 

As it turns out, absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

Your quite right. I left out a lot of my reasoning.

 

You see, I have a vision of how to solve this thing. My vision is,

 

Step 1) Find all the theories that explain all the observable facts. I'm not so arrogent as to think that mine alone is the sole theory.

 

Step 2) Since we have used all the available evidence to sort out the ones that really don't work, chosing the correct one is now more a philosophical question since it could be any of those remaining.

 

So step 2 is to take measures which would solve Islamic Terror FOR ALL THE SURVIVING THEORIES.

 

Therefore, if it CAN work, it MUST be considered.

 

Step 3) Watch as Islamic Terror becomes confined to the history books and we can spook our children with wild and unbelievable tales of people who were so determined to kill those outside their religion that they were happy to die to do so.