The Conniviance of "post hoc ergo propter hoc"

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is one of my favourite fallacies simply for its inevitable reoccurence. I think it is the source of most, if not all, of the current environmental movement. It certainly fuels the Man Made Global Warming debate.

So here's an example of this fallacy in a different setting. I will caution you that the writer sharing this tale has a less than politically correct telling of the tale. I include this tale on this website in order to show the reader that while I personally disdain owner's manuals and instructions, I will fess up to admitting that I actually read such things before I take out my soldering iron. The days of unlimited budgets are over. I actually have to pay the bills out of my own pocket. And I'm selfish. I'd rather have the dough than the repair bill.

So, politically correct or not, here's a rather funny story about a picture you may have seen on the intertubes.

Remember, post hoc ergo propter hoc has real costs associated for bad thinking. This is just a case where the cost is immediately apparent. So much fallacious thinking has costs only for the other guy. And if you're penalizing the other guy for your erroneous thinking, you may not even be aware of those costs. Besides, they're bad and you're good. So it doesn't matter.

Chelsea v. ManU

Even if you don't love soccer, you'll love this game.

Tonight on ESPN Classic. 8 p.m.

Watch.

This is what soccer is all about.

(This is a re-broadcast. This post has no spoilers. Enjoy. But don't bet if you don't trust your buds.)

Trust and the Even Playing Field: Practicum

In "Trust:Four" I wrote briefly about the role of law. And from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, this:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

But what does this mean? What practical application can be found to determine whether or not our political system is operating within the framework of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the States throught the 14th Amendment?

Let's take, as an example, the administration of the law. On an even playing field we can expect the same outcome to be repeated, again and again and again. That is because the rules are set up in order to provide fairness of outcome. It doesn't really matter if the rule is different than what you expect--or expected--the rule to be. For instance, if you're an American football dad, you're very aware of the rule that determines what "out of bounds" is. If any part of the player or the ball touches the line, the player is "out of bounds".

But take that same dad to a soccer game and you'll hear admonishments to the referees in their application of the "out of bounds" rule. See, in soccer, a player can play the ball off the field. If he touches the ball while he is out of bounds, but the ball is in bounds, play continues. It is the ball, not the player that determines "out of bounds". Secondly, the ball is not "out of bounds" if it touches the white line. In fact, the ball remains in play until the entire ball is outside of the white line. You can dribble the ball on the line. Most of the ball can be outside the white line. It isn't until the entire ball is completely outside the white line that the ball is "out of bounds".

Same phenomenon. Different rules. Both applied consistently.

And given time, as the rules are consistently applied, an observer can deduce these differences and discontinue his well-intentioned admonishiments to the officials staff. Better yet, this dad could read the rules. I think the world would be better off if more people read the rules. You are not assembling your child's bicycle, where the rule is no instructions and plenty of beer. I will not associate with any man that admits to reading instructions. Whether it's bicycle or bookshelf. And I will race you to claim "first blood".

But instructions are different than rules. You can instruct your center-mid to hit the wing coming into the box on the left, but if he doesn't take the clear, open shot from the top when available, you'd better re-think who is playing at center-mid.

If you tell your quarterback to look for the receiver crossing behind the defensive line, but then refuses to throw to the back open on the side-line, you'll re-think who is playing at quarterback.

Instructions are different than rules. Remember Florida in 2000? The Butterfly Ballot? Election officials in come Florida counties prepared a ballot for the fall 2000 election that resulted in some saying that the ballot was unfair. It was too difficult to follow the instructions. But as any dad will tell you, instructions don't mean a thing. A couple of beers and a box of tools and parts and viola!, some time later you have a bicycle. (Circle of Life, man.)

Just because you don't understand the instructions, or disregard the instructions doesn't matter. What matters are the rules that apply.

In the case of the bicycle the rules of physics apply. I always suggest that you--the dad--ride whatever bicycle you've assembled to test whether or not the bike will pass the rules test before handing the product off to your progeny. This is a "fairness test". It is applying the rules of physics to you, the assembler, before the rules of physics make a victim of your child. Fair is fair.

In politics and law, fairness is determined by application of the Fifth Amendment. It requires Due Process. It requires the fair and even application of the law. Take the case of NBA referee Tim Donaghy. Here's a guy facing 25 years in prison and a $500,000.00 fine.

(Right click for audio.)

Now take the case of Secretary of State Bill Bradbury. Back in January he was arguing against the rights of voters to sign an initiative petition. His words were

"Whether the purported signer in fact did sign the petition is of no moment under Oregon law."

Amazing words. Which I wrote about here.

Now, today we receive this report from BlackBoxVoting:

"Out of 1.4 million, the state of Oregon claims that 29 counties had ZERO mismatched signatures, and in the 10 remaining counties that reported mismatches, the grand total was (drum roll please)..... 34 ballots.

"Yes, out of 1.4 million, just 34 signatures did not match. With those figures, it seems equally plausible that the dog's pawprint that made it through a couple election cycles in Washington State as would have fared just as well in Oregon. Heck, a scribble drawing or a blob of spaghetti might work fine too, we just don't know. "

It's a miracle. Or, it is Contempt of Court of a federal official. Notice that in the case mentioned above, the Secretary of State has argued that checking a handful of signatures created "an impossible administrative burden" on the state. And yet, miracles of miracles, the state was able to process 1.4 million ballots and found only 34 signatures that did not match.

This is prima facie evidence of contempt of the federal courts. And, of course, contempt for Oregon voters. But this is, of course, the same Secretary of State--the state's chief election official--that has failed to follow the rules when it comes to his following the election laws of the state.

Now, somebody is lying. Either it's the 36 county clerks or the Secretary of State. Given the playing field, who do you think it is?

(Prompted by a post at ClassicalValues.)

The Value of a High School Education

Here's an exploration into learning that promises utility for the student.

I guess it goes hand in glove with the political message of Senator Obama. If we don't start living within our means now, when will we start?

Now that graduation approaches, remember, your kids are prepared for the future.

Profound Art

In all of life, there are poseurs and hacks. Pricking pins into the balloons of self-importance is, and has been, one of my life's greatest pleasures. If you need a little reading material, I suggest "To Esme, With Love and Squalor". (J.D. Salinger, New Yorker, April 8, 1950.)

But, just one.

The other has been the pleasure afforded by great art. Which is a curse, and a gift.

Imagine being besot by middle school bands, orchestras and choirs. Or, high school bands, orchestras or choirs. Or...college, community or worse yet, professional bands, orchestras or choirs. There is a role for the elite to play. There is a separation we need to be aware of. There are great middle school, high school, college and professional bands, orchestras and choirs. Just as there is great basketball, soccer and baseball teams at those levels. But when it comes to combing the human experience, and the potential of human as artist--whether mathematician, chemist or shoe salesman--there is a sifter at work in some dark corner. The sifter that separates the wheat from the chaff. The sifter that makes each of us responsible for our own weaknesses and failings. And allows each of us, great and small, poor and rich, to succeed and fail.

(Right click and listen in new window.)

And as an example of the sifting process, the arts perform best as that venue, the sifter in some dark corner.

The elite artist, just as there are elite businessmen and athletes, performs at a level that gives us a moment to surrender to the fact of our own limits. And in terms that make our surrender sweet. To the organicist, it is simply the effect of the effete upon our limbic system. To the aesthete, it is simple recognition of beauty. To the rationalist it is simply recognition that the ideal, while unattainable, can be represented.

Whatever you bring to art, you are blessed in your approach. If you approach art without discrimination, your experience will be blessed by your lack of discrimination. In the words of Irwin Edman, it is "...the process of casting false pearls before real swine”.

Every field of endeavour hates and praises the elite. Too much time is spent on attempting to ridicule and besmirch the elite. For all the wrong reasons. The elite exist without our connivance. The elite aren't concerned about your cares or your needs. The elite don't exist to fill a role planned by the state. The elite exist because they, at least at one thing, are better than you.

Or, perhaps, in your field, you are a member of its elite. Having been, at one time, one of an elite group of tenors--yeah, high voiced singers--it is amazing how small the world is. At the time when I thought of a professional career, there wasn't a tenor in the state I didn't know. Or, know of. This has been brought home at my later age by my sons. My oldest knows, or knew of, every athlete who was as good as or better than he at basketball or track in the state. Today, at university, he is aware of those with whom he will be competing for awards as he enters the professional school this fall.

My youngest has been accepted to a professional school as an admitted freshman. He, too, knows the athletes who are as good, or better, than he in soccer and track in the state. And, having taken a slightly different path to college from his brother has an awareness of those--in his field of choice--with whom he will be competing on a national level.

Both my sons are among the elite. The oldest with his understanding of mathematics. My youngest with his musicianship. Yet, neither of them are assholes.

Being elite doesn't mean you have to be an asshole. So, why are there so many elitist assholes running around?

I think it has to do with a fear of losing one's elite edge. Or, of the recognition that one's own estimation of one's "eliteness" is simply a fabrication of the self. Why would a baseball player feel compelled to take steroids, knowing that their use was proscribed by league rules? Why would a politician take up the mantle of Man Made Global Warming, knowing that the science was fraudulent?

I can only come up with two reasons, although you may come up with more. One, there is a misunderstanding of what must occur before one settles upon a conclusion about its existence. It's understandable. If you're told, over and over and over again, that a thing is true, by persons who identify themselves as elite, you may fall victim to its repetition. Or, you're simply dumb, and have no ability to think things through.

Two, you don't care about whether or not a thing is true, but you see it as a way to help you accomplish what you want to do, without fear of worrying about the outcomes your acceptance of this or that fraud may result in, your only task being to position yourself as a member of the currently accepted elite.

To the sorrow of these two cases, it is unfortunate that merely parroting an "elite" view is no key to membership of the elite.

To a member of the elite, whether its music, business, athletics or selling shoes, one cannot pose. It's just impossible. If you play the horn better than I, that is simply the case. If I truly feel that I play the horn better...and hence cannot fill the principal chair, my decision is to continue playing or leave for a different orchestra. Because I can either rely upon the decision of the conductor, or upon myself. But during a performance I cannot decide to begin playing the principal part simply because I feel I'm entitled. (I think if I did that, my future would be sharply delimited.)

(Right click and listen in new window.)

In business I cannot lie, cheat or steal. (I think if I did that, my future would be sharply delimited.) Or, as an athlete, I can't suddenly decide it's my turn at quarterback, instead of as that of linesman. Or, as a shoe salesman...actually, the field of endeavour for the shoe salesman is still pretty open. Affecting knowledge of politics, religion, fashion or sport may, in fact, enhance one's role in the shoe salesman's world. Let's say the jury is out.

For the politician, what rules encompass the elite? As a musician I'm only as good as I am. And ensemble as only as good as I play as a part of the orchestra. (In the music world, the notion is known as balance. Hit link, search "balance".)

But, is there balance in politics? The calm voice that attempts the avoidance of timbral differentiation is rarely rewarded. It is the harshest voices that gain recognition. Not elite. Simply heard. So is the lesson to be learned that those who seek to limit the harshness of political dialogue will simply be its victim?

Politicians, as a class, are not known for their distinctive accomplishments. Which is sad. Today, most of our politicians are of the "political class". That class of individuals who have only known politics as their career. Is it Matthew 6:28? ("...Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they toil not, neither do they spin :")

That wasn't always the case. Governor McKay was known as a fine car salesman. Governor Hatfield had an amazing military career, a post-bac degree from Stanford, and a teaching career at Willamette before entering politics. Governor Atiyeh was a carpet salesman. With a reputation for the finest carpets available. Each, and of themselves, was a member of an elite class. Great car salesman, great professor, great carpet merchant.

And as men they raised good families with wholesome values. To know them, to meet them, to be with them, you didn't know they were elite. Unless you wanted to use their services. Then you were referred to them. They were recognized, among the elite, as the best.

There is no leveling the playing field for the elite. At least, no honest way. One of the greatest men alive today is Jack Welch. Fortunately for those positioned as competition for the industries controlled by General Electric, Mr. Welch has retired. And for those who know Mr. Welch, while he is elite, he isn't an asshole. And since he left GE, the truth is, the brand is faltering. The vision that Mr. Welch chose as his operating principles have left the building. With him.

For the elite, vision isn't a group concept. It's an individual concept. It isn't created by committees. It dominates committees. It often clashes with consensus. It often ends in failure. The responsibility lies with the man who creates the vision. And its success is the trophy of the individual's vision. Sometimes as the soloist. Sometimes as a member of the orchestra. Usually as the conductor. But the elite vision requires something that most elitists elide.

Commitment to performance. Bearing the cost of failure. Exposure to risk. Failure.

And hitting your mark. Bringing it off. Making the grade. Success.

Being an elite and being an elitist are therefore two different things. I know a lot of elitists. I know of very few elites. Being elite has cost. Being an elitist has no cost. Being elite is being responsible for your thoughts and actions. Being an elitist is shrugging off the costs for your thoughts and actions. Being elite is being an individual. Not being the same as your neighbor. Not having the same talents at music. Or painting. Or selling shoes. It is, in the words of Curly, "One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don't mean shit."

Which is why I've post the picture above. Maryhill Museum. One of the best art experiences available to you. You live here, in the Northwest. You owe it to yourself to visit.

Coming up on June 21st, Maryhill Museum of Art will present a day-long dance festival in honor of one of its founders, modern dance pioneer Loïe Fuller (pronounced low-ee). Daytime activities are scheduled from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Maryhill Museum of Art. An evening performance will be held at 7:00 p.m. at The Dalles-Wahtonka High School.

And please, remember, that being an elitist is not the same as being elite. You can talk game. Try banging with Charles Barkley. He's 45 years old. How old are you? 20? 30? 40? 50? Wanna game? Even fading elite is better than a rising elitist.

It's all about Trust and the Level Playing Field. Would you limit the elite? Or, would you limit the elitists?