Comment Big leaps bypass small details (Score 2, Interesting) 506
From the article:
"'a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection.' In other words, pure happenstance. Yet by merely noticing a coincidence, we elevate it to something that transcends its definition as pure chance. We are discomforted by the idea of a random universe. Like Mel Gibson's character Graham Hess in M. Night Shyamalan's new movie ''Signs,'' we want to feel that our lives are governed by a grand plan."
The definition of coincidence (which starts the quote above) says "no APPARENT connection" (my emphasis). The author is factually incorrect, by their own definition, in saying that "no apparent connection" equals "pure happenstance" (the definition of happenstance is, by the way, "A chance circumstance").
The author then bounces from this shaky springboard into a big leap indeed: the assertion that a person who thinks that something without an "apparent" connection might have a hidden of obfuscated connection is equal to "want(ing) to feel that (their) lives are governed by a grand plan." The rest of the article merely strives to make the reader feel better about this supposed personal weakness.
The article, then, is essentially designed to make the reader feel foolish for considering the possibility of a connection, and in fact suggests that those who consider the possibility of a connection are merely trying to make themselves seem more important to themselves than they are.
This is inappropriate, for a simple reason embodied in the hackneyed phrase "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you". The reason is this: Cause and Effect is a real, everyday occurance. The absence of immediate and irrefutable proof is not cause for dismissal of the possibily of correlation (and potentially causation). If it were, police detectives wouldn't bother investigating crimes -- the lack of immediate and irrefutable proof would be sufficient to rule out guilt.
Instead, I have found (in my own limited life experience) that those who avoid arguments against the allegation, and instead present arguments against he/she making the allegation (as this author is doing), are unable to refute the allegation. Instead, I have found that this inability generally stems from their being:
(a) convinced that they know more than the person with the opposing viewpoint (the closeminded and/or cynical)
(b) lacking sufficient knowledge to refute the allegation, but unable to stay uninvolved (the ignorant and/or nosy) or
(c) aware that the allegation is potentially/partially/completely correct yet is in a position where they must refute the allegation (the guilty and/or the paid off).
Please note that my argument above does not prove that there IS a connection, any more than the article in question proves that there is NOT. My point is simply that the author is either cynical, close-minded, ignorant, nosy, guilty or paid off, and can thusly be safely ignored by intelligent people who are considering the issue for themselves.
"'a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection.' In other words, pure happenstance. Yet by merely noticing a coincidence, we elevate it to something that transcends its definition as pure chance. We are discomforted by the idea of a random universe. Like Mel Gibson's character Graham Hess in M. Night Shyamalan's new movie ''Signs,'' we want to feel that our lives are governed by a grand plan."
The definition of coincidence (which starts the quote above) says "no APPARENT connection" (my emphasis). The author is factually incorrect, by their own definition, in saying that "no apparent connection" equals "pure happenstance" (the definition of happenstance is, by the way, "A chance circumstance").
The author then bounces from this shaky springboard into a big leap indeed: the assertion that a person who thinks that something without an "apparent" connection might have a hidden of obfuscated connection is equal to "want(ing) to feel that (their) lives are governed by a grand plan." The rest of the article merely strives to make the reader feel better about this supposed personal weakness.
The article, then, is essentially designed to make the reader feel foolish for considering the possibility of a connection, and in fact suggests that those who consider the possibility of a connection are merely trying to make themselves seem more important to themselves than they are.
This is inappropriate, for a simple reason embodied in the hackneyed phrase "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you". The reason is this: Cause and Effect is a real, everyday occurance. The absence of immediate and irrefutable proof is not cause for dismissal of the possibily of correlation (and potentially causation). If it were, police detectives wouldn't bother investigating crimes -- the lack of immediate and irrefutable proof would be sufficient to rule out guilt.
Instead, I have found (in my own limited life experience) that those who avoid arguments against the allegation, and instead present arguments against he/she making the allegation (as this author is doing), are unable to refute the allegation. Instead, I have found that this inability generally stems from their being:
(a) convinced that they know more than the person with the opposing viewpoint (the closeminded and/or cynical)
(b) lacking sufficient knowledge to refute the allegation, but unable to stay uninvolved (the ignorant and/or nosy) or
(c) aware that the allegation is potentially/partially/completely correct yet is in a position where they must refute the allegation (the guilty and/or the paid off).
Please note that my argument above does not prove that there IS a connection, any more than the article in question proves that there is NOT. My point is simply that the author is either cynical, close-minded, ignorant, nosy, guilty or paid off, and can thusly be safely ignored by intelligent people who are considering the issue for themselves.
