Ways of Knowing Essay

In order to distinguish between something that is true, and something that is believed to be true, it’s important to examine the truth-in-question with the four ways of knowing, as well as it’s justifications, and through Plato’s three truth requirements. If something that is believed to be true cannot be properly explained and justified through the ways of knowing and the justifications of at least empiricism and/or authority, than it is probably not true.

When examining something to figure out if it is true or just believed to be true, it is really important to look at the four ways of knowing, which are: emotion, reason, language, and perception. If something that is believed to be true can be looked at through these four ways of knowing, then it is mostly likely true, and not just believed to be true. For example, it is true that I have, what is generally known as “red hair.” I perceive my hair to be of a reddish color. Using reason, I can deduce that I am a “red-head” because my hair is not brown enough to be considered “brunette”, nor is it light and honey-colored enough to be considered “blonde,” nor is it dark enough to be considered “black,” and the only general remaining natural color is “red.” Emotionally, I know that my hair is red. I feel the secondary emotion of pride at knowing my hair is red, which I know is more rare than blonde, brunette, or black. I know that it is more rare through the justification of empiricism. I have seen more brunettes, blondes, and black-haired people, than I have seen people with red-hair. Language as a way of knowing, also helps be know that my hair is red. Through further empiricism, I have heard people use terms like “carrot-top,” “ginger,” and “freckle-face,” to describe not only me, but other people who I know have red-hair. These Language terms help me to know that my hair is red because the terms themselves generally refer to the color red, or reddish colors, and so using them to describe someone helps us know that they have red hair.

There are counterclaims to this of course, the first being that “red” is not a natural hair color, and that anyone who has natural “red-hair” actually has more orange-colored hair. One who is using this counterclaim, could reference the language term “carrot-top” citing that carrots are orange, and so someone who is a “carrot-top” actually has orange-colored hair, rather than “red.”

Another way for us to examine something that may be true is to look at it platonically. Plato’s three requirements for truth help us limit what has the possibility to true and what does not, and ultimately helps us differentiate between the real truth, and the believed truth. Plato said that for something to be true it must be “Public” (available to the masses), “Independent” (of one’s belief system), and it must be “Eternal” (it always has been and will be true). This platonic examination of the four ways of knowing will better help us distinguish between the truth and the belief of truth. An example of this is a traffic light in America. It is true that red means stop and is at the top of the traffic light, yellow means slow down and prepare to stop, and is in the middle of the traffic light, and green means go and is at the bottom of the traffic light. We can justify that this is how an American traffic light works, through Knowledge by Authority. Our parents, our drivers’ education teachers, and our government, all authority figures, tell us that this is how an American traffic light system works. We know that this is true because it is public. Anyone can go to a traffic intersection and see a traffic light, and watch the traffic as it goes by and how the cars react to the changing of the lights. By doing this, they will also get an empirical justification. Or, if one does not have access to a streetlight at an intersection, the literature is available, on the Internet or at one’s local Registry or Department of Motor Vehicles. It is independent of one’s belief system in that, anyone of any religion in America, can look at a traffic light and understand what each color means and knows what they are supposed to do. Because it is known to the public, even if you believe that what others see to be the color red, is green, and you run a red light or in you opinion, “green light,” you can still be ticketed because the truth of the way the traffic light works is independent of your belief that the color red is actually green. Finally, the traffic light system is eternal. Even if the system one day, changes, it will always be known that at one time, red meant stop, yellow meant slow down, and green meant go. It is a part of history and it has already been proved to be Public and Independent, so we know that is will be Eternal.

However, one could claim that because not everyone in the world has Internet access, nor the literature that describes would an American traffic light, that this knowledge is not Public enough, and so it would not pass one of Plato’s three requirements for truth, and can only be considered to be true, not a simple truth.

There are implications of my argument that a truth needs to be backed up by the four ways of knowing, the justifications of Authority and Empiricism, and Plato’s three requirements of truth. One general implication is that a lot of things that we considered to be true will be questioned, and perhaps found not to be as believed. For my peers, this might mean when reading an article passed out in History class, we have to considered it’s source, where it was published, by whom it was published, etc., before we can accept that the information provided to us is the truth. For my school, the implication is that the teachers must work harder to provide and inform the students with the most possibly accurate information, and that they must go through the ways of knowing, as well as Platonic truth requirements and justifications, to be sure that information is accurate, and provides, at the very least, one part of the truth. The implication for the world is that leaders may be questioned on what they proclaim to be “the truth.” And if they know that they may be questioned about why what they are saying is the truth, they are more likely to do the proper research and confirm that what they tell people is true, and not simply believed to be true. An example of how this may work is an example from the past. George W. Bush claimed that dictator Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and that he wanted to use them on the United States. If he had been questioned on this claim with the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, it is very possible that his claim could be shown to be simply believed to be true, but not actually true, and many American soldiers’ lives would have been saved.

In conclusion, when we examine a claim, using the four ways of knowing, the Platonic definition of truth, and justifications, we can better distinguish between something that is true, and something that is simply believed to be true.

The Elephant Man

The Elephant Man
Please consider the David Lynch film, The Elephant Man, to answer the following questions.

1. (A) Is John Merrick a Monster? In your answer, consider how you could use the following Areas of Knowledge to justify your claims.

John Merrick is not a monster.In relation to history, he does not behave like the monsters in our fairy tales. In the movie, he can speak, he can create, in general he can contribute to society unlike the monsters of fairy tales, who are generally the antagonists of those stories, and do not seem to contribute to the fairy tale kingdoms. In The Elephant Man, John Merrick is the protagonist of the story.

In relation to the natural science, John Merrick is not a monster. He has a disease, and having a disease does not make you a monster, much in the same way that having cancer does not make you a monster. Also, not every part of John Merick was deformed. As Dr. Treves pointed out when Merrick first came to the hospital, Merrick's genitals are completely normal for a human, further evidence that although he is deformed, he is not a monster. According to social science, John Merrick is not a monster. He behaves like a gentleman, is intelligent and refined. When given nice clothes to wear, and a dressing case, he uses them, just as any other gentleman would. Merrick proves himself not to be dangerous, nor a criminal, and so social science shows us that he is not a monster.

Finally, in relation to the arts, John Merrick proved himself not to be a monster. Not only can he appreciate the arts, such as the theatre, which he visited, and wished to go again, as expressed in the movie, but Merrick was also able to create art, something no monster should be able. In visiting the theatre, and creating a beautiful paper catherdral, John Merrick has proved himself not to be a monster, through the Arts.

1. (B) What is the counter-claim for each Area of Knowledge?

The counterclaim for each Area of Knowledge, can be shown through the actions of Mr. Bytes, John Merrick's former "owner" in the circus.

In relation to History, Mr. Bites would claim that he knows the story of why John Merrick looks as he does, that his father is an elephant, that the African story Mr. Bytes was told is true, to look at the elephant man and hear the story, one would know it was true.

Mr. Bytes would also say that, according to the natural sciences, John Merrick is clearly a monster. He would say again that simply looking at the elephant man would show you that he is a monster. He would say that obviously no human could look like that, and that no animal could look like that either, so a cross between a human and an animal would be a monster.

Mr. Bytes also believes that John Merrick is a monster according to the social sciences. It seems that Merrick won't speak in front of Mr. Bytes, so it appears that all Merrick can do is grunt and spit. Merrick does not act like a man in front or Mr. Bytes, so Mr. Bytes would claim that he is a monster, and not a man because he does not act like a man.

Finally, in relation to the arts, Mr. Bytes would claim that Merrick is a monster because Merrick cannot create, nor appreciate any art, and that monster can neither create or appreciate art. it is evident through the film that Merrick is too frightened of Mr. Bytes to really do anything in his presence, so it appears to Mr. Bytes that Merrick cannot create or appreciate, or indeed contribute to society, so Mr. Bytes sees him as a monster, and treats him as such.

2. John Merrick claimed, "I am not an animal, I am a human being!" What does he mean? How does he know?

He means that he is not wild, a monster, someone who would hurt others. He is trying to explain that he is not dangerous to the crowd that is converging on him, simply because he looks different, scary and dangerous. He wants them to know that he will not hurt them, or anyone, because he fears that they will hurt him.

He knows he is human through knowledge by authority. Dr. Treves has told him that he is not a monster, that he is human, and Dr. Treves is a physician, so he has authority. Dr. Treves even explains to his colleagues how, although Merrick is deformed, he is a human, and even in spite of his deformities, some parts of him remain unaltered. Merrick also knows that he is human, through knowledge by introspection. He knows how to read, and knows the Bible, front to back, he can appreciate beauty, and art, and he can even create beautiful things. He knows that he is a thinking being as, believes himself to be a human because of theses things.

3. Dr. Treves asks, "Am I a good man, or am I a bad man?" What does he mean? How does he know?

He wants to know if he is a good man for taking care of John Merrick, for giving him a place to stay, for examining him, and for introducing him into English society, and giving him friends like the actress, Ms. Kendal. However, he wonders if, by introducing Merrick into English society, he has behaved like Mr. Bytes, showing Merick off to the world to see, just as Mr. Bytes did, presenting Merrick as a freak. He knows he is a good in two ways, Knowledge by Authority and Knowledge by Introspection, just as John Merrick knows he is human, not animal. The Knowledge by Authority comes from his wife, and from John Merrick. When he poses his question to his wife, she reassures him that he is good because of all he has done for Mr. Merrick. This inspires his knowledge by Introspection, where he examines what he has done for Merrick, such as rescuing him from Bytes, giving him a place to stay, food, and companionship. His knowledge by Introspection is confirmed by John Merrick when, upon his return to the hospital after being kidnapped by Mr. Bytes, Merrick tells Dr. Treves, that if it were not for him, Merrick would not be happy, because he would not know that each moment of each day, he was loved, and calls Dr. Treves, "my friend."

4. What role does the herd mentality play in the film? Please be specific in your answers.
The role of herd mentality plays both negative and positive roles in the film. Some of the negative roles are:

-The proclamation of Merrick as a freak in the circus.

-The excitement in the bar, as the night watchman, eggs on the drunks to come and see the elephant man.

- The reaction of the drunken crowds when the night watchman brings them to Merrick's room.

-The gathering hoard chasing Merrick in the train station after the little boy steals Merrick's protective cap/sack.

The positive roles of the herd mentality in the film are:

-The clapping of the audience after Ms. Kendal when she dedicates the performance to Merrick.

-The standing ovation that follows Merrick when he stands at the performance.

-The visitors to Merrick after Ms. Kendal, who comes of her own accord.

-The treatment of Merrick as an intelligent human being by the nurses and other hospital staff, after Dr. Treves presents and explains him as such, instead of an idiot.

5. How did the community react to the different Monsters in the film? Please explain your answer.

If you believe that John Merrick was a monster, then the community reacted two different ways to the three monsters in the movie.

The first reaction to a monster that they had, if you believe John Merrick to be a monster, was in horror and fear, at the beginning. Before Dr. Treves showed English society that Merrick was not a monster, almost anyone who looked at him, saw only his disfigurement. Women screamed in terror, men jeered and laughed, or just looked in disgust. It wasn't until Dr. Treves showed Merrick kindness and discovered his intelligence and gentleness, that he could be accepted by others as a man, and not a monster.

The second reaction the community had to the monsters in the film, is a much scarier reaction than horror at a monster. Their reaction to the two men, I perceived to be monsters, was that of acceptance. I perceived them to be monsters because they were exploiting John Merrick, using his misfortune of disease, for their own personal gain. Mr. Bytes beat Merrick simply because he was deformed and Mr. Bytes believed himself to be the owner of Merrick. He did not seek to have Merrick examined, and did not wish for him to live and be cared for in the London hospital, because it was a loss of income for him. The community accpeted Mr. Bytes by going to the circus, and paying him to see the "freak," the elephant man.

The night watchman was the other man I perceived to be a monster, and the community readily accepted him too, with people from the bar, paying him to go and see and jeer at Merrick in the hospital. It seemed as if they believed that what the watchman was doing was okay; those who went to Merrick's room, actively participated in terrorizing Merrick.

6. John Merrick claims, "We are afraid of what we don't understand." Do you agree? Does this statement apply to the modern world or have we learned to treat perceived Monsters with dignity? Please be specific in your answer.

I do agree with Merrick. In the movie, it is evident that almost everyone who first sees Merrick is frightened of him They do not know that he is a normal man with a disease which has deformed him, that he is intelligent and kind. Once they understand this, like Ms. Kendal, they seem to like him, and do not, for the most part, appear frightened of him, because they understand that he is a normal man on the inside.

I believe that for the most part. this statement still applies to the modern world. human beings are still afraid of what they don't understand. The Bosnian War is proof of that. Serbian Christians fear the Muslims in that part of the world, partly because they don't understand them, they don't understand their culture or their traditions. This statement still applies to the US, but less so. In the US, citizens are more accepting of differences and other cultures. However, Americans are often still afraid of what they don't understand. For example, after September 11, 2009, many white Americans were afraid of Muslim-Americans, especially those who wore traditional garb. This fear was irrational because the Muslim religion, Islam, literally translates to "peace." Those Americans did not realize that not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. In general, though, Merrick's statement is generally true throughout the world, present somewhere in each culture.

Justifications

Plato believed that there are 4 ways to Justify:

A) Empiricism
B) Reason (Both Inductive and Deductive)
C) Authority
D) Memory

Questions:

1. After learning about how the Bosnian War began and the role of Karadzic and Milosevic, was it fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster"?

I still believe, after learning how the Bosnian War began and the roles of Karadzic and Milosevic, that it was fair for the Independent to use the word "Monster." However, the Independent would have been more justified in sharing the cast blame with the Milosevic. Milosevic is only mentioned twice in the article, and while the Independent does mention that Milosevic is "the man who still calls so many of the shots," they focus mainly on Karadzic's actions.

2. How do you think this phrase would be justified, according to Plato? Use specific examples from the reading and the documentary, The Death of Yugoslavia, to justify your claims.
According to Plato, this phrase would be justified mainly through Empiricism. Peter Maass actually went to Omarska and some other work camps, and saw the way that the Muslims were being treated, through the commands of Karadzic. Also, the images from the documentary The Death of Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing and mass exodus of Muslims, which is shown as Karadzic's doing, by what he says in the council, is also Empirical evidence to support the term "monster" in relation to Karadzic.

Another way this phrase can be justified platonically is by Authority. Authorities such as our government, the United Nations, our teachers, our parents, etc., tell us that genocide is horrible, terrible thing, and I have, in fact, heard my parents refer to those in charge of genocides, such as Hitler, as monsters. This knowledge by authority justifies calling Kardzic a "monster," as he is responsible for the mass killings, both on the street and in the camps, of the Bosnian Muslims.
3. When the term Monster is used, what do you think it means. (You can look it up in the dictionary, but as you know, that has limitations).
The definition or Monster from Dictionary.com is:

1.	a legendary animal combining features of animal and human form or having the forms of various animals in combination, as a centaur, griffin, or sphinx.

2.	any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.

3.	any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.

4.	a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.

5.	any animal or thing huge in size.

When the term "Monster" is used by the Independent, I think that the 3rd and fourth definitions apply to what they are trying to express. When I hear the term "monster" used, I don't generally think of a literal monster. In relation to a person, i think of someone who has done something terrible, like crippling or killing someone.

It will be important to skim both articles again, in light of what you now know.

4. Has your answer changed since your first entry? Why or why not?

My answer has not changed since my first entry. I still believe that Karadzic c is a monster, justified by Empirical and Authoritative evidence. I believe that any race and/or religion should be permitted to exist, to live wherever they choose to call home, and not have to fear for their lives, simply because they a re a minority. Any person who thinks that those minorities should be exterminated, is, in my opinion, a monster. It is my belief that the act of killing another human being, let alone hundreds or thousands, is a terrible, horrible, monstrous thing.

Karadzic: Monster

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "Monster." Think back to last year and consider: "How do they know what they know?" How have they attempted to justify their knowledge claims? Please be specific.

The Independent refers to Karadzic as a "monster." In an attempt to justify their knowledge claims, the Independent uses war speak, empirical knowledge, and is written in such a way to make the reader feel primary emotions, such as anger and sadness, in order to make their knowledge claims justified.

War speak is the most prolific way in which the Independent successfully (at least, in my case) evokes anger and sadness, two primary emotions from the reader. Some examples of heavily emotionally laden terms, in the Peter Maass article, Love Thy Neighbor, are:

-"survivors of Auschwitz" (recalling the most brutal Nazi concentration camp in WWII)

-"Kalashnikov assault rifles"

-"God-knows-what torture"

-"the sorriest infirmary you could imagine"

-"more bruises, more swelling, more open wounds."

-"they walked surprisingly well for people without muscle or flesh."

-"talking skeletons!"

-"mutilated chest"

-"puss oozed out."

-"his skin was stretched like a transparent scarf over his ribs and shoulder bones."

-"you have a girlfriend who has not been raped."

Each of theses terms is used to describe what Peter Maass saw at the Serb prison camps, but his use of words such as "skeleton," and "mutilated," bring about emotions of sadness and disgust, making the topic of the article more realistic to the reader.

In the Independent article,war speak is used more frequently because the Independent focuses more on Karadzic, rather than on the prisoners of the war camps. Therefore, there is more war speak used in this article to justify that Karadzic is monster, because of the methods of his politics.

War terms in this article are:

-"tanks"

-"killing"/"brutality"

-"'war criminal'"

-"'ethnic cleansing'"

-"intolerance"

-"Nazi-style"

-"'provocation'"

-"detention camps"

-"artillery"

These war speak terms implicate Karadzic as a monster. Comparing him to the Nazis, compares him to one of the most notorious mass-murders of all time. The use of these aggressive war terms, is a (successful) attempt to make Karadzic out to be a dangerous mass-murder, a monster.

Empirical Knowledge

In Peter Maas's article, the reader receives empirical knowledge, as the writer, Peter Maass, is writing in the first person, and at the beginning of the article it is clearly stated: "(This chronicles my visit to several Serb prison camps.)"

Therefore the reader may conclude that this article speaks to the truth of what is generally happening in Serbian prison camps. Peter Maass has experienced it, seeing sights and going places, such as the infirmary, where he was "not supposed to be." If he tells us of his experiences, then the truth is relayed to us, the readers. We may assume that this article is truthful because it is:

-public

it has been published as a clip from a book, and the camp guards occasionally allow the journalists to enter the camps, so others may verify this.

-independent

Peter Maass is an American journalist( http://www.petermaass.com/about/), so his article is free of both the Serbian and Bosnian beliefs that dominate either side of the war.

-eternal

as a published book, anyone who would like to read this article, is available to it, and journalists are occasionally allowed into the camps to report on, so if one would like to visit the camps for his or herself, one could become a journalist to do so.

In conclusion, the Independent, and the Peter Maass article successfully convey the horror of the prison camps, and through knowledge justifications of their claims, portray accurately, I believe, that Karadzic is a monster.

Andre The Giant: OBEY

1. What is your emotional response upon entering the exhibit? Please explain.

-my first emotional response upon entering the exhibit was confusion. I didn't understand what Andre the Giant was for, what Fairey meant to convey with his message of "OBEY." After reading the explanation in the exhibit, my emotional responses varied from shock at  the way Fairey was able to incorporate so many different elements of art, and even some shock at the messages he conveyed in his art work. Another emotion I felt we're humorous, such as the piece portraying President Bush as a vampire.

2. What is your emotional response upon leaving the exhibit? Please explain.

-my emotional response upon leaving the exhibit was sadness because I wanted to stay longer, looking at Fairey's artwork, seeing the amount of detail he put into piece. 

3. Does emotion interact with reason, sense, perception and language for you in this exhibit? If so, how?
-Emotion does interact with reason, sense, perception and language for me. Emotion on the topics Fairey chose to portray, was intertwined with the language he used in some of his pieces, which may have invoked a different emotional response than it would have without the words. My emotions mixed with reason, on Fairey's work, so that through the added emotional response, I could better understand the reasoning behind the messages Fairey was trying to convey, and it was the same with my perception. Once i read about the different parts of the exhibit, my perception changed, so that instead of being confused about a piece of artwork, i could better perceive the message, without unjustified emotions changing what the true message was meant to be.

4. Is this an American culture exhibit? How might someone from a non-Western country respond to this exhibit? Why? 
-This is a mostly American culture exhibit because Fairey chooses to create pieces that mostly deal with American culture, such as the Obama hope piece, or the portraits of the rappers. However, a non-Western country would respond to the pieces in the exhibit that dealt less with American culture, and more with global issues, such as the Chinese soldiers, or the Indian women. I think that a non-Western country would appreciate and understand those pieces more than the American culture pieces.

5. Can one appreciate theatre, music and art using only the rational mind or must Emotion play a role? Explain.

-I do not  believe that one cannot appreciate theatre, music, and art using only the rational mind. Emotion must be involved, simply because emotion is used in creating all three of those art forms. It is impossible to try and understand what the composer, playwright or artist is trying to convey in their chosen form, if one only analyzes rationally without taking the emotions of the creator into account.

Fallacy Essay

Fallacies are a part of human life. It is natural to have committed at least one fallacy in one’s lifetime, and to have witnessed countless others’ fallacies. In my opinion, fallacies are “bad;” they distract and confuse the true meaning and/or argument, and do not answer the questions they are asked.
One of the worst things about fallacies is that they can be very convincing. Sometimes they are convincing because you can’t argue with them, such as the Ad Ignorantiam fallacy. The Ad Ignorantiam fallacy claims something is true because it cannot be proved false. An example of this is: Ghosts are real, because you can’t prove that they’re not. This fallacy is impossible to argue; the opponent cannot make an argument to disprove the fallacy. However, this fallacy’s argument does not make any applicable point. It doesn’t show any valid evidence for the argument, in this case, that ghosts do exist. This argument may convince some people, usually those who do not care enough to come up with a quick response which cuts through this fallacy. Also, this fallacy often convinces people because of their trust. Adults will sometimes use this fallacy in an attempt to explain an issue to a child who does not understand an issue. Because the adult is the one speaking, the child show trust and assume knowledge by authority. Another convincing fallacy is the Equivocation fallacy. In this fallacy, one uses language ambiguously, using two different meanings for one word. This fallacy can be particularly convincing, and confusing. An example of this is: A hamburger is better than nothing, nothing is better than good health, therefore a hamburger is better than good health. The word here that has two different meaning is “nothing.” In the first part of the syllogism, the speaker is saying that eating a cheesburger is better than nothing to eat. In the second statement of the syllogism, the speaker is making an exagerration that nothing feels better than being in good health. To make the syllogism complete, on must put the two premises together to make a conclusion. However, because the word has two different meanings in the premises, the conclusion is nether valid or true. This is one reason why the Equivocation fallacy is so powerfully convincing: the syllogism should be an indicator that it is not a fallacy. However, it is not. Also, if confronted with using the Equivocation fallacy, one can claim that s/he was just using a synonm, which can further confuse the audience. In confusing the audience, the speaker than has the opportunity to explain further in his/her own terms that speak closer to what their conception of the equivocated word is, rather than a more innocent meaning.. One other convincing fallacy is the False Dilemma. In this fallacy, one assumes that only two alternatives exist, when in fact, there is a wider range of options. An example of this is: You are either a Republican or a Democrat. One reason why this argument is so convincing is its simplicity. In the case of this example, many Americans simply pick the party with whom they share most of the ideals. It is the simplest thing to do. Far fewer Americans choose to be part of the lesser know parties, such as the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party. Perhaps another reason why the False Dilemma is such a convincing argument it is so inclusive. In my example, the Democratic and Republican parties are the most popular and therefore the most likely to have groups of people with generally the same ideas and opinions. This is why they are part of the fallacy. Each party is so inclusive to a common type of person, that the need to differentiate between more than two main parties is lacking. In relation, sometimes people do not feel as if they have the time to enquire into more specific, less general parties, and so decide to belong one of the two major parties, because they do not know that there are other political parties to choose from, or they just feel that they belong with a general set of people. Either way, it is a False Dilemma, to assume that there are only two real political parties. The False Dilemma is very prominent in the information from the Enron mystery. In the Enron mystery, the fallacy of the False Dilemma is shown. The False Dilemma here is simple, “You are with us or you are against us.” Enron used this general fallacy to cover a few other fallacies, such as the binary thinking, and Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc. Midway through the movie, the trips that Skilling went on with other employees of Enron, are talked about in such a way that presents binary thinking. Skilling liked to take a few of the high-ranking employees out on motor-biking trips, where they would ride their motorbikes around on the tracks, performing very dangerous stunts, stunts which could have possibly killed them if there was an accident. These kind of trips were common for Skilling, and if he invited you you basically had to go. If you didn’t go, you weren’t “cool,” (binary thinking) and if you didn’t want to go, not only were you not cool, you could be seen as “against the company” because you didn’t enjoy the company’s relaxation trips.You were also “against the company” if you did not put a lot of your money into the company’s stock. Employees of Enron evaluated each other, and saw this as a weak point to exploit in the peer reviews. They only saw the way an employee used his/her salary, in terms of for the company or against it, aka, the False Dilemma. The fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc is also present in the Enron company. Both the Gladwell reading and the movie discuss the PRC or the Performance Review Committee. This was a group of people who reviewed their fellow employees and could collectively decide whether or not to fire the person they were reviewing. The Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc fallacy they used stated that “if you were fired from the job, you must not have been doing a good job,” when in fact they were firing people so that they themselves could be promoted. Another way the Post Hoc Ergo Prosper Hoc fallacy was used, was in explaining the money Enron was supposedly making. They said “we must be doing well if our company is making money.” The only problem with this was that Enron wasn’t making the money they said they were. It was a projection of the money they thought they should have been making, with mark-to-market techniques (where they project the money the plan to make over the course of several years). To emphasize their projections, Enron also used the circular reasoning fallacy (assuming the truth of something the are trying to prove) , where they said “we must be doing well and making money because our stocks are going up.” Another popular fallacy Enron used was the Ad hominem fallacy, where they supported Jeff Skilling and his opinions rather than the facts. If anyone had a question, they were told to “go ask Jeff,” as presented to the audience in the Enron movie.Whatever Jeff said was the right thing, whether or not it was true. Even this sort-of positive fallacy cannot be justified.
In my opinion, fallacies cannot be justified. A the definition of a fallacy, from Dictionary.com is: 1.a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc. Therefore, it cannot be justified in my mind. For me, personally, it is always better to know the truth, then to be mislead. In the case of Enron, the Ad hominem fallacy, “Go ask Jeff,” created more problems than it solved. Jeff, himself, even says that he can’t answer a question specific to Enron’s finances because he is not an accountant. Therefore, the fallacy that Jeff knows everything and controls everything about Enron, makes it nearly impossible to learn about anything going on at Enron. Other fallacies cannot be justified either. Circular reasoning cannot be justified, because in this fallacy, one never makes a valid point in their argument. If a valid point cannot be made and used, then it has no purpose. The fallacy of the False Dilemma cannot be justified because the perspective has narrowed, and not all options have been considered. Without all the options, a proper choice cannot be made. The Ad ignoratiam fallacy, that something is true because it cannot be proved false is similar to the circular reasoning fallacy, where the point cannot be proved because there is no valid argument.
Everyone experiences fallacies in their own lives. One of the most recent examples of a fallacy that occurred in my own life was during the 2008 elections. One of John McCain’s aides, not-so-subtly used the Ad hominem fallacy, by putting emphasis on Barack Obama’s middle name, Hussein. McCain promptly fired him because he wanted to attack Obama’s ideals and platforms rather than the man himself, which is the way it should be in politics. A more personal experience with a fallacy was with a discussion with one of my friends on the possibilities of aliens. I said that I wasn’t really sure if I believed in aliens, although I did see the potential for them on planets or in other solar system similar to our own, but did not see the prospect of humans discovering them within the next decade. My friend, a firm believer in extraterrestrials quickly exclaimed that I couldn’t claim that there were no such things as aliens because I could not prove that they did not exist. This is the Ad ignoratiam fallacy. I quickly pointed out to my friend that I had never said that aliens did not exist, I was merely skeptical that we would find any in the next few years. Our discussion moved on after that point. In conclusion, fallacies, which are present in everyone’s lives cannot be justified, at least in my opinion, nor than they can the be “good.” Those wishing to counter my claims may say that some fallacies may protect someone from being hurt. However, I would prefer to know the truth rather than be deceived, or confused on a topic which may be interesting to discuss at length, without the use of fallacies.

Enron #3

1. What does Gladwell mean when he says that, 'Puzzles are "transmitter-dependent"; they turn on what we are told. Mysteries are "receiver dependent"; they turn on the skills of the listener.'?

When Gladwell says, “Puzzles are ‘transmitter-dependant,’” he means that the information that is received is based solely on what you are told. The pieces of the puzzle do not have to be interpreted to be understood. “Mysteries are ‘receiver-dependent,” because the information given must be interpreted, what is understood depends on what the receiver hears.

 

2. Why didn't Enron have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.'s? What would be Enron's defense? Can you name the Illogical Fallacy present?

Enron didn’t have to pay taxes on their S.P.E.s because it was just an “accounting fiction,” because the IRS doesn’t  pay attention to mark-to-market accounting; they only tax you when you make money: “you pay tax on income when you actually receive that income.” Enron’s defense would be that they weren’t making the money, they were projecting that they would make money, and the IRS taxes actual income, not projected income. The Illogical fallacy present is circular reasoning: Enron’s claim that they are making money but cannot be taxed on it, but the IRS taxes income, but couldn’t tax Enron’s S.P.E.s because they weren’t actually making money, they were projecting the money they would make.

 

3. Did Enron try to hide the fact that they weren't paying taxes?

Enron did not try to hide the fact that they were not paying taxes. However, if anyone requested information on Enron’s S.P.E.s, the “paperwork for each one probably ran in excess of a thousand pages,” so it was hardly easy for anyone to discover that Enron was not paying taxes.

 

4. Why does Gladwell claim that, 'Woodward and Bernstein would never have broken the Enron story.' Why don't you think anyone asked about Enron's financial statements? Is there a fallacy at work here?

Gladwell claims that ‘Woodward and Bernstein would have never broken the Enron story’ because they did not have a source, a leak, as they did with Deep Throat in the Watergate scandal. I don’t think anyone asked about Enron’s finances because of the huge amounts of paperwork, and also that Enron’s stock was doing so well, and the company seemed to be thriving, so no one questioned it. The ad hominem fallacy is at play here, where Gladwell assumes that Woodward and Bernstein wouldn’t have broken the Enron story, because they wouldn’t have had a source. He does not look at their investigative abilities without the help of sources, but he attacks them, for having a source.

 

5. Gladwell claims that, 'Mysteries require that we revisit our list of culprits and be willing to spread the blame a little more broadly. Because if you can't find the truth in a mystery—even a mystery shrouded in propaganda—it's not just the fault of the propagandist. It's your fault as well.' Do you agree with the implications of this statement?

I agree that if you cannot find even a bit of truth in propaganda, it is your fault as well as the propagandist. Because propaganda is based in truth, and propaganda, is 2/3 Platonic truth: it is independent of one’s belief system, and it it is public, but it is not always justified.

 

6. What was the advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock?

The advice of the Cornell students to anyone who held Enron stock was to sell. ‘The students' recommendation was on the first page, in boldfaced type: "Sell."’