Day: January 31, 2008

BEHOLD.

Posted on | by Ed | 27 Comments on BEHOLD.

So here it is – the all-new ginandtacos. It was created by the Courtney, and she did it for free. She is amazing. Her theory, posited several months ago, was that one of the things holding back g&t was its lousy mechanics. The search and archives sucked, updating the layout was cumbersome, and it generally looked dated. I think many of those problems have been solved.

First of all, I encourage everyone, be you new visitors or long-time readers, to use the comment function to let me know what suggestions you have. Is everything easy to read? Laid out logically? Are there bugs? "Design" is not exactly my specialty so please point out anything that isn't where it should be.

Second, I'd like to add to the Blogroll. Post a link to your site in the comments and I'll probably add you. Strong preference is given to the reliable regular commenters and friends of g&t, of course.

Lastly, good god almighty does MoveableType suck dong compared to WordPress. I'm not sure I can mathematically express how many times more straightforward and user-friendly this is.

So that's that. I'm pretty goddamn excited about it, but obviously there's always room for improvement. Let me know, and enjoy.

ED VS. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 15: P.B.A./INEXPLICABLE

Posted on | by Ed | 4 Comments on ED VS. LOGICAL FALLACIES, PART 15: P.B.A./INEXPLICABLE

(Note: Be sure to check in tomorrow – big things on tap. So excited.)

As my friends over at Non-Sequitur point out, some logically flawed arguments are so bizarre, convoluted, and flat-out…wrong that they defy description. We've all been there, confronted by an argument so incoherent and stupid that we don't even know where to begin responding. Non-Seq and other logic-oriented writing dump these arguments into general categories with names like Unclassifiable, Uncategorizable, Inexplicable, Things that are False, or Plain Bad Argument. Ending up in this netherworld means that one or more of the following is true of an argument:

  • It is so nonsensical that it doesn't even rise to the lofty height of being a logical fallacy. Fallacies, after all, have rules.
  • It is internally inconsistent and therefore not an argument.
  • It contains so many different fallacies that it's impossible to pick one that defines it.

    Now, if you're particularly cynical you might feel a slight tickle in the back of your head that says, "Ha ha! What is Ed going to do now, bring in David Brooks?" Yes, here comes David Brooks. If you've ever visited this site before, you'll know that I hate very few people like I hate this blob of penile cancer. I actually smell sulfur in the presence of his columns. Leaving aside the fact that he's condescending, disingenuous, and boring, the guy also can't construct an argument to save his soul. Look (if you dare) at his latest, a 600-word explanation/solution of the entire subprime crisis. You might think it's a complicated issue, but as usual David explains just how simple it all is – alongside the proper conclusions to be drawn. Let me summarize if you dare not read it:

    1. No one is responsible or to blame for the subprime mortgage crisis – it just happened, apparently independent of any actor or action.

    2. There's no reason it should be a campaign issue, since it is no one's fault.

    3. It will fix itself, so long as we are willing to be Good, Reasonable People and let the infinite wisdom and majesty of the market fix it. As it fixes all things.

    It's amazing how many different fallacies he manages to incorporate. A college instructor could make an excellent assignment out of this. See if you can count'em all, kids! David's editors sure can't. And you're brighter than the people who hired Bill Kristol, aren't you?

    One more example, which was my original inspiration for this post a few weeks ago. I ran it by amateur logician and regular commenter Matthew L., hopeful that he could categorize it for me. I believe his response was "I'm really not sure that this is sophisticated enough to be a logical fallacy. Unless you count being an idiot as a fallacy." Indeed, Matthew. Indeed. Consider the following argument made by sportswriter Dave Buscema, who is arguing why a particular player should not be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame:

    I can let the mediocre win-loss record go a bit because he played for so many poor teams and excelled in the postseason when given the chance, but ultimately I still would have liked to have seen at least a little better winning percentage … and more than one 20-win season in 22 years."

    Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ. Fortunately we are only talking about sports here and not something important. The writer does not mind the player's mediocre Wins vs Losses record, but his winning percentage (Wins / Wins + Losses, obviously) is too low. And he didn't win enough games. Folks, this is how an argument negates itself through the sheer brute force of its idiocy. And that's how an argument can be so bad that its incorrectness can scarcely be described.