You've written the script for my nightmares! Excellent article, as always. Is the solution to the low-trust society the demand that facts accompany every truth? I've always found demanding receipts to be a good way to separate opinion from truth, and most of what passes for truth today - from all sides - is opinion or propaganda. In any case, the Constitution is the final barricade from which we will either win back or lose the republic.
When you demand "receipts" or empirical proof in a debate, you are making a critical mistake. You're shifting the argument from deductive logic to inductive evidence. This is the fundamental difference between debating the coherence of an idea and fighting over data. This shift guarantees the original argument will never be resolved, as the discussion devolves into endless arguments about the source of the data, how it was collected, or how it is interpreted. The core logic of the claim is completely abandoned, and you see this constantly in debates about topics like climate, the origins of life, and crime statistics.
Demanding data is often the lazy way to debate. If I propose an idea, a theory, an axiom, or a philosophy, my responsibility is to make the argument logically sound. The burden of proof then falls on the challenger to prove that the fundamental logic of my claim is flawed. Simply throwing empirical data at a logically constructed argument, is an intellectual shortcut; the true rigor lies in demonstrating an internal contradiction in the claim itself.
So when a leftist tells me climate change is going to kill me in 12 years, asking for proof is wrong? I suppose the receipts could be how many times disaster from climate change/cooling/heating has not happened, and that information is presented by the person denying the disaster is imminent? Sounds reasonable. My concern is when debating/discussing anything with the left, their instant reply when their data is questioned is “You’re a denier!” and that’s it. They do not, because they cannot, produce defensible information that supports their position.
The issues isn't no trust or lack of trust, because the United States was built on a foundation of distrust of government & people in general. For the last 70 years we've watched as governments in the US have invaded every aspect of our lives. Oh, sure we are free as long as we have the ability to purchase that freedom from the governments.
One of your assumptions is that society is dependent on government institutions for it's existence, instead of government's existence depending on a society.
Another issue is you assume the United State is a Republic, which all the founding documents say otherwise. the biggest is the Preamble of the Constitution that clearly states that we are a Union of states.
Listened to Glen Beck talk about the nine steps to losing the country and it was sobering we are at 7 we haven’t crossed it yet and we aren’t at the point of no return but we are close
The futility of argument: Knowing that my source would be challenged, I used the NY Times to support my point. Their reply ? "Even they get it wrong occasionally". I give up.
You've written the script for my nightmares! Excellent article, as always. Is the solution to the low-trust society the demand that facts accompany every truth? I've always found demanding receipts to be a good way to separate opinion from truth, and most of what passes for truth today - from all sides - is opinion or propaganda. In any case, the Constitution is the final barricade from which we will either win back or lose the republic.
When you demand "receipts" or empirical proof in a debate, you are making a critical mistake. You're shifting the argument from deductive logic to inductive evidence. This is the fundamental difference between debating the coherence of an idea and fighting over data. This shift guarantees the original argument will never be resolved, as the discussion devolves into endless arguments about the source of the data, how it was collected, or how it is interpreted. The core logic of the claim is completely abandoned, and you see this constantly in debates about topics like climate, the origins of life, and crime statistics.
Demanding data is often the lazy way to debate. If I propose an idea, a theory, an axiom, or a philosophy, my responsibility is to make the argument logically sound. The burden of proof then falls on the challenger to prove that the fundamental logic of my claim is flawed. Simply throwing empirical data at a logically constructed argument, is an intellectual shortcut; the true rigor lies in demonstrating an internal contradiction in the claim itself.
So when a leftist tells me climate change is going to kill me in 12 years, asking for proof is wrong? I suppose the receipts could be how many times disaster from climate change/cooling/heating has not happened, and that information is presented by the person denying the disaster is imminent? Sounds reasonable. My concern is when debating/discussing anything with the left, their instant reply when their data is questioned is “You’re a denier!” and that’s it. They do not, because they cannot, produce defensible information that supports their position.
Thank you for the explanation.
The issues isn't no trust or lack of trust, because the United States was built on a foundation of distrust of government & people in general. For the last 70 years we've watched as governments in the US have invaded every aspect of our lives. Oh, sure we are free as long as we have the ability to purchase that freedom from the governments.
One of your assumptions is that society is dependent on government institutions for it's existence, instead of government's existence depending on a society.
Another issue is you assume the United State is a Republic, which all the founding documents say otherwise. the biggest is the Preamble of the Constitution that clearly states that we are a Union of states.
I frear a rebuild is coming -- AND NECESSARY. It won't be pretty.
Listened to Glen Beck talk about the nine steps to losing the country and it was sobering we are at 7 we haven’t crossed it yet and we aren’t at the point of no return but we are close
The futility of argument: Knowing that my source would be challenged, I used the NY Times to support my point. Their reply ? "Even they get it wrong occasionally". I give up.