The danger of “rational” bias
by Peter Johnson
Recently Duncan Ross, a Baptist Pastor in Duluth Minnesota, wrote a “Local View” opinion letter to The Duluth News Tribune—one of our local newspapers. In it, he lamented that during the last 20 years “actual definitions of words gradually have been altered in order to formulate arguments that sound traditional and reasonable but are embedded with an entirely new meaning.” This was news to me, since the way this Pastor defined specific words and how their meanings have been altered, was in itself a deviation from the meanings I usually define these words as conveying.
In his article the author actually defines, or redefines, about sixteen commonly used words which are generally used to discuss political or social issues, and he euphemistically claims that emotional arguments make use of words which often require a “fluidity” of meaning. In other words he is claiming that they don’t have real and established definitions anymore. He also identifies those who make use of this “tactic” of assigning fluid meanings to words, as being “more often employed by those on the left because, the core of their arguments tends to be emotional rather than rational.” But, as a Liberal I disagree and point to the many angry and hateful comments made by those on the right as self evident examples that this is not always true only of Democrats—as if all that anger and hatred on the right, is not also typical of making emotionally based arguments.
I’ll cite a few examples of particular definitions of words that the Pastor considers to have been “altered,” because listing them all, would only repeat the obvious theme of his article. So hear are just a few:
1.Bigot: “one who habitually practices intolerance as it is now defined”—and the Pastor defines (Intolerance) as: Any ideological stance that denies that, “all values beliefs, and lifestyles are equal?” But as a politically liberal person (left of center) I would say that a “bigot” is someone who irrationally hates members of some disliked group, and, “intolerance,” as indicating a refusal to respect the religious, cultural and social beliefs, of others. Whether or not they all are considered “equal,” by what and/or whom, is quite absent and unnecessary under that definition:
2. Truth: as it is currently used, is considered by the Pastor as, “the view, opinion or position held by me or the group(s) with which I associate,” and that truth “cannot be known as an objective reality, even though this “definition of truth” is something, “I (he, she, or they) fully expect you to accept.” But the Dictionary still insists that truth is defined as “the real state of things,” or as “facts.” The pastor may be correct if he believes that different ideologies have different claims about what is real, or about what is a fact, but when it comes to issues like Global warming, or Darwinian evolution, science bases these ideas on objective facts that are absolutely true and are exhibited in massive amounts of physical and factual evidence i.e. we don’t believe that the world is more than 10,000 years old — we know it is!m—unless, of course, we want to “believe,” in the unproven and false Biblical claim that the entire world was created in only 7 days—and unless we also want to summarily dismiss the massive amounts of data that affirms the reality of man-made global warming.
3.Then there is his definition of Compromise, which the Pastor defines as: “The practice wherein you and those of your group surrender your core principles, and in exchange, I and those in my group, concede to lightly tweak our positions in ways that are functionally insignificant.” But the dictionary defines compromise as a settlement of differences reached by mutual concessions. And, in fact, our President has often stated that true compromise means both sides need to make concessions about ideas and beliefs that they don’t necessarily want to give up—not to unfairly surrender core principles—but rather, to make mutual concessions on various contentious issues.
4. Another of the Pastor’s personally skewed definitions is for the word Fairness, which he defines as follows: “The State of things when all people possess the same level of materialistic resources irrespective of their education, initiative, or responsible life decisions.” But again, as a person somewhat left of center, I would not want to demand that anybody must become as wealthy as Buffett or Gates, or even be on par with those who still earn middle class incomes. To me, economic fairness does not have to do with eliminating all class distinctions, but rather that, the weakest and most needy of us should be able to make use adequate social safety nets, in order to secure basic food, housing and employment, while attempting to take care of their lives—especially considering that since the Recession, many hard working, responsible members of the middle class became the victims of Wall Street’s excessive greed, and, were really hurt by the lack personal professional responsibility that should have been paramount among its executives—regardless of their education, initiative and/or how they make their own life decisions. This should be considered especially important since these executives were largely responsible for wiping out, or seriously damaging, the entire retirement nest eggs of millions of other Americans, and, because our social safety nets are meant to help anyone — even if life throws them a curve by delivering disaster, and/or ill health—something that can also befall the wealthiest among us.
5. One more striking definition from the Pastor concerns the word, Dogmatism, which he says is, “A class of responses, to an argument stated clearly and convincingly but that is in conflict with my views and the views of the group with which I associate.” So, I guess under this definition those who (resisted) what many in the Klu Klux Klan considered clear and convincing arguments that the white race deserved to be dominate, and even that, God meant it to be so, must actually be guilty of dogma. And, as I previously mentioned, any scientist relying on objective and extensive physical evidence which affirms the reality of natural evolution and the clear knowledge of Climate Scientists with PhDs—along with the massive amounts of solid physical evidence that supports the existence of man-made global warming, must also be guilty of Dogma—merely because someone untrained in Climate science, presumably like the pastor, thinks otherwise! In my Webster’s dictionary, dogma denotes the presence of unreasonable beliefs and the arrogance of denying things which have been “proven” true, and in favoring one’s own personal bias and opinions. The pastor seems to have forgotten that one man’s “clear and convincing,” may be revealed as definitely false or untrue, when additional objective analysis is included—Just as many in the Middle Ages thought it made simple common sense that the Earth was flat, despite many scientists who proved otherwise—after all, they could see it was so with their own eyes! But, true open mindedness does not casually accept that anything considered “clear and convincing,” is necessarily so.
Of course I could dispute each word that the author claims has been redefined by simply referencing the English Dictionary, which as far I know, is still the main authority on English words and their definitions. But in summary I would rather point out that, it is the letter’s author, who indulges in subjective interpretations of those words, and does so while relying on many of the talking points commonly used by conservatives and those on the right—who frequently accuse liberals of not making decisions based on reason, but rather, on “emotionally based augments” that are not truly rational.
I consider myself Liberal on most social and political issues, but my political beliefs are a matter of my own opinions about what a real democracy is supposed to espouse—probably not much different than the feelings many conservatives may have, when deciding which ideas they consider best, and/or the most rational.
The Duluth pastor seems to be making a subjective commentary based on his own views about emotionally charged arguments, rather than using rational arguments to support his claims. His commentary is, itself, not supported by objective and rational definitions. Instead it is full of his personal opinions about the left’s use of definitions that make little or no objective sense to many on those who actually are on the left. And, in reality, the English language hasn’t really changed that much over the last century—so both liberals and conservatives are likely to be confused when being told that they think in certain ways, that they really don’t entertain.
Peter Johnson is a senior citizen who has become much more interested in what is happening in America and the world, than he was as a young man. He’s interested in poetry and expository writing, and has had letters to the editor published in Time magazine, Newsweek and Playboy magazine. He is concerned about ignorance and indifference that has been circulated concerning the significance of man made global warming and is dismayed dismayed by the way political lies and corruption are being used to influence the public (apparently free from any penalties or adequate culpability). He frequently writes letters of opinion to the editors of his local newspapers.