Insanity and Inanity
Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:56:35 AM PDT
Cross-posted at MyDD
If presented with two different explanations for the same set of facts, how does one tell the difference between them?
For example:
(1)
Fact: a substantial number of Independents and some Republicans voted for Obama
Explanation 1: It’s a malicious conspiracy.
Explanation 2: He has some cross-party appeal.
(2)
Fact: Senator Clinton almost cried a couple of times on the campaign trail.
Explanation 1: She’s faking it to gain sympathy.
Explanation 2: She’s a human being who feels human emotions.
(3)
Fact: There are fossils of dinosaurs.
Explanation 1: They were put there by God to trick us.
Explanation 2: They are there because dinosaurs once walked the Earth.
There is a principle in science and philosophy concerning what makes some explanations better than others. It’s called Occam’s Razor. Philosopher Jonathan Vogal gives a pretty good definition of it:
Other things being equal, a simpler explanation is superior to a more complicated one.
Also, in general, we ought to avoid using ad hoc explanations. For example, if I theorize that Richard Nixon is a member of secret cabal working to elect Ron Paul, and someone said, "Shef, Richard Nixon is dead," I would have to make the ad hoc jump that, "no, he’s not that was faked." You might say, "How did he fake it!" And I would have to say, "The MSM and a vast group of people helped him do it!" I think you see where this is going. All these ad hoc leaps serve only to ensure that my initial claim is insulated from any test which might prove it wrong—a hallmark of a poor explanation.
Okay, on to the relevance for this primary election.
(1)
In order for there to be a massive conspiracy among Republicans to get Sen. Obama the Democratic nomination, there would have to be an equally massive veil of secrecy probably including the MSM, rank-and-file Republicans, and higher-ups in the Republican party. They would have to be so committed to getting Sen. Obama the nomination that they wouldn’t care if they could vote in their own primaries and caucuses (this would have mattered more earlier on in the election cycle). In light of the fact that the evidence for this is anecdotal at best and non-existent at worst, I think we can go with explanation two: people vote for Senator Obama because they like Senator Obama.
(2)
The claim that Senator Clinton is faking her emotions is equally explanatorily weak. All things being equal (and I think we can agree that there is no substantive evidence that Senator Clinton is faking her tears, unless a secret Clinton Campaign memo detailing her plot to cry has come out without me knowing it...) it is a far simpler explanation that Clinton, being a human being with human emotions, was affected by the experiences she’s heard on the campaign trail and responded to those experiences in a normal human way, then to say that she and her campaign have a devious plan to cry when she’s down in the polls (or something... frankly, this theory is so inane, I have a hard time following it).
I understand that this primary is a divisive one. While I think both candidates would be great presidents, I know there are important differences in policy and message. The two situations I brought up are only a couple of non-issue issues that are tossed about, not just in the MSM but in this reality-based medium. Really, I’m having a hard time with claims that Obama supporters (I am one, nominally, by the by) are cultists and Hillary and Bill are closet racists.
Permalink | 4 comments