|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 19:33:36 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Go ahead and lay out the premises you're using that lead you to the logical conclusion that smoking is illogical. |
There is only a single premise and it is not one that I have statistical evidence to back up, nor do I believe that such evidence exists. If you know of some, I would be glad to hear of it.
The premise is my opinion precisely as I have and will continue to define opinion here and elsewhere. The premise is that a very large majority of human beings do want to live a long and healthy life. If that opinion is a truth statement (which I cannot demonstrate), then logic dictates that most people who smoke are acting in a manner that is not consistent with a condition of health and age that they wish to attain. In other words, they are acting irrationally. For practical purposes, I equate that with acting illogically, so smoking is not a logical activity for most.
If Skeptics are using logic and critical thinking to govern their daily activities (i.e. not jumping out of airplanes without a parachute), then these good skeptics will not allow themselves to smoke because it would be in violation of the Good Skeptics Code (use logic at all times when it is practical) which they should not violate if they want to continue to be Good Skeptics.
Perhaps a verrry large poll, or extensive scientific investigation using the Sacrosanct Scientific Method could validate the truthiness of my Opinion. Otherwise, I refuse to travel the same troubled road that we covered some time ago on this subject. There are some twains that shall never meet. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2010 : 19:45:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
A Skeptic appying critical thinking and logic to the concept decides the thrill isn't worth much pain and a probable early uncomfortable death as a consequence of a smoking habit by applying simple logic to the problem - you can only do it once and it obviates doing anything else, ever. A good Skeptic's trained Critical Thinking helps her decide that Life is better than Death for her. |
How? Really, bngbuck, you must go from premise to conclusion for us, step by step, and show us how all skeptics must conclude that life is better than death, without exception.| I disagree with the premise that engaging in behavior that is highly harmful to one's health and ultimely is deadly is contrary to a Skeptic's application of logic and critical thinking to decisions because to conclude that smoking is OK even though it is very harmful is to deny reality (the huge accumulation of medical statistics tha t demonstrate that a smoker will suffer and eventually die if he continues the habit. To risk death with acceptable odds and earn a great reward if the risk leads to success is probably a form of logical behavior for some. But to practically assure a painful and drawn-out death, or at least extremely uncomfortable medical procedures to save ones life from the damage done, is, to me, an illogical decision. |
Then you'll next be going after skeptical sky-divers and skeptical fatties, yes?| Those that do not employ logic, critical thinking, and skepticism (and I do believe all three are inextricably entwined) in living their personal lives, can easily rationalize their smoking habit - not everyone gets sick and dies from smoking. No, only a great majority. |
How much of a majority?| I would wager that a large percentage of true practicing skeptics don't smoke. |
I see a set-up for a No True Skeptic fallacy.| Maybe a [SFN} poll, Dave? |
Maybe you should detail your logic more completely before we even worry about arguing from popularity (or unpopularity, as the case may be). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 20:01:12 [Permalink]
|
| It is illogical. Illogic is contradictory to critical thinking, which in turn is an important part of the Skeptic's posture. |
You seem to have the same problem with Spock in thinking that logical is synonymous with rational. The two are quite different. If in a conversation both parties agree that A is true and A implies B, yet someone still thinks B is false, then yes they are acting in an illogical manner. But to state an activity is illogical without listing out your premises and statements of inference is simply nonsensical.
I listed out my premises and conclusion (and hoped the logic was easy enough to deduce) and asked you to point out exactly where you disagreed. Instead you gave me an example which you think contradicts my logic. While it is certainly valid to consider such an example, why have you not agreed to my request? Is it because you can't find where you disagree?
But as to your example: Yes you must still weigh the benefit of jumping out of the airplane against the cost. Of course, virtually everyone will rate the cost of dying much higher than a few minutes of thrill, especially when that thrill could be had over and over again with a simple device. In your example, the cost is greatly increased and the benefit (subjectively, to Hitchens I would imagine) decreased. While you never made this explicit, it seems implicit you would like me to conclude that the same conclusion I would apply to your parachute example should apply to smoking. But by changing the cost/benefit ratio, you have thereby changed the information used to make a the previous conclusion, and therefore it doesn't carry over. In other words, your example seems to be a nonsequitur when it comes to the smoking issue, if not a red herring.
Allow me to provide an example of my own. Say hypothetically it was found that having sex carried the same risk of disease as smoking does, equating 10 minutes of intercourse with 1 pack of cigarettes. Would you still opt to have sex? I would. Now yes, in this example the benefit (to me at least) is increased over that of smoking. But this is precisely my point: measuring a benefit like smoking or sex is subjective and has nothing to do with skepticism or logic. So Hitchens may see the benefit much higher than you do, and nothing in critical thinking can ever say he's wrong much like you aren't wrong for liking baseball over soccer.
| I would wager that a large percentage of true practicing skeptics don't smoke. |
By this wager it is implied you would agree that there are true practicing skeptics who smoke! Also be careful about going down this road: you're getting awfully close to the Not a True Scotsman fallacy. Not everyone can apply critical thinking at all times. Even more so, I'd wager that all people at some point suspend critical thinking, super skeptic or not.
| Absolutely correct, and I smoked heavily for over forty years and paid a terrible price for it. |
No one is saying that Hitchens won't regret it in the future.
And this is a bit off topic but...
| ...I just don't understand how phrases like "a self-centered prick" contribute much to discourse or understanding of another's viewpoint. |
It is my viewpoint that if you impose your subjective opinions onto another person, then you are a self-centered prick. If I don't say that, then you would have no understanding of my viewpoint. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 08/06/2010 20:03:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 20:35:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
There is only a single premise and it is not one that I have statistical evidence to back up, nor do I believe that such evidence exists. If you know of some, I would be glad to hear of it.
The premise is my opinion precisely as I have and will continue to define opinion here and elsewhere. The premise is that a very large majority of human beings do want to live a long and healthy life. If that opinion is a truth statement (which I cannot demonstrate), then logic dictates that most people who smoke are acting in a manner that is not consistent with a condition of health and age that they wish to attain. In other words, they are acting irrationally. For practical purposes, I equate that with acting illogically, so smoking is not a logical activity for most.
If Skeptics are using logic and critical thinking to govern their daily activities (i.e. not jumping out of airplanes without a parachute), then these good skeptics will not allow themselves to smoke because it would be in violation of the Good Skeptics Code (use logic at all times when it is practical) which they should not violate if they want to continue to be Good Skeptics.
Perhaps a verrry large poll, or extensive scientific investigation using the Sacrosanct Scientific Method could validate the truthiness of my Opinion. Otherwise, I refuse to travel the same troubled road that we covered some time ago on this subject. There are some twains that shall never meet. |
No need to trouble yourself so over your opinion, I have no need or desire to play your silly semantic games.
Instead, it appears that your entire "smoking is illogical" argument is based upon the naturalistic fallacy: that just because something is, then that's the way it ought to be. In this case, it's also an argument from popularity, since you clearly state that since most people want to live long lives, that skeptics should, also.
So your argument is invalid for at least two very obvious reasons (neither of which has to do with "opinion"). Shall I quote the SFN mission statement at you to try to humiliate you?
No. Instead, I'll repeat myself: there is nothing in the "Good Skeptics Code" which insists on any particular view about the value of life or living. And I'll add something that you already know, there's a very different cost/benefit calculation for dealing with addiction than there is for a behavior which is entirely a choice, yet you seem to be conflating the two.
What's worse is your rationalization for driving. People don't need to drive. If living a long life is the most-important consideration (as it seems to be for you for smoking), then living a long life should be the most-important consideration when analyzing the cost/benefit ratio of driving a personal automobile. You should have concluded (logically speaking) that "Skeptics" should use public transit, ride bikes, walk, take lower-paying jobs or move closer to high-paying jobs in order to avoid the risks associated with driving, but instead you tried to claim a need (also based on popularity) which doesn't actually exist. Driving is a choice, just like smoking. A choice which statistically shortens lives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2010 : 20:36:46 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
I would wager that a large percentage of true practicing skeptics don't smoke. |
I think in this day and age, you could say that about any group, skeptical or not. I would wager that if we counted those new agers who attend the expos, constantly trying to clean up their auras and align their chi, many of whom are compulsively fixated on "wellness," people we know are not skeptics, have, on the average, a lower percentage of smokers than skeptics.
You would probably be amazed at how many skeptics smoke. I can't tell you why that is, but having hung with them at the Del Mar in Vegas just a few weeks ago, I can tell you that the air was thick with smoke. Hell. I met Desiree Schell of the great Skeptically Speaking podcast down where the smokers smoked during an afternoon break at TAM. I also met Christopher Hitchens the same way. Not a single skeptic gave any of us a dirty look. Some non smokers even joined us.
Now, I'm not saying that smoking is a good thing. It isn't. But there I was with the highest powered skeptics in the world, and no one asked us to turn in our critical thinking cards.
Sure. We are concerned about people who make bad choices. But really, critical thinking isn't about telling people what to think. It's about teaching people how to think. I know that smoking is a bad choice. And I keep trying to stop. But I am completely aware of the risks involved. It's a stupid addiction. But it is an addiction. I make no false claims about smoking. I don't defend smoking on the grounds that it will magically do anything for me. I'm aware of the risk and I am concerned about it.
In short, the act of smoking does not make me irrational. I would be willing to go half way with you and concede that starting smoking is usually irrational. Most of us started smoking for stupid reasons. But I don't see any critical thinkers touting the benefits of smoking. Now that would be irrational.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 08:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Bill:
I would wager that a large percentage of true practicing skeptics don't smoke. |
I think in this day and age, you could say that about any group, skeptical or not. I would wager that if we counted those new agers who attend the expos, constantly trying to clean up their auras and align their chi, many of whom are compulsively fixated on "wellness," people we know are not skeptics, have, on the average, a lower percentage of smokers than skeptics.
|
Looks like many of us had very similar reactions to this statement from Bill. Either the "no true Scottsman" fallacy or what constitutes a large percentage. Whether 75-80% non-smokers would be considered large. I believe it does. I also see where 70% of the remaining have attempted at least once to quit.
I saw the Anderson Cooper interview with Christopher Hitchenson one comments stood out for me. When asked if he thought there would be a death bed conversion. He essentially said not while cognizant or lucid, but who knows what might be said during the delirium of drugs or the mental debilitation of the disease. When pressed in a final follow up he simply said, "Don't you believe it." This is just from memory so I am sure I missed his eloquence. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 11:18:28 [Permalink]
|
Ricky.....
| But to state an activity is illogical without listing out your premises and statements of inference is simply nonsensical. |
And exactly how does this demonstrate that applied logic and rationality are such different entities? Richard Whatley defines Logic as "the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning. I happen to equate rationality with the art of reasoning, so I favor that particular definition. You don't. I'm sorry that we disagree, but as Truth is very difficult to define, there are bound to be different opinions .| I listed out my premises and conclusion (and hoped the logic was easy enough to deduce) and asked you to point out exactly where you disagreed |
You made three unrelated statements...1. There are benefits to smoking (almost solely personal enjoyment).
2. Deciding whether to do something or not is about weighing the benefits against the costs.
3. Skepticism has very little to do with how one assesses the weight of a particular gain or cost. |
Please express these ideas in either standard symbolic logic notation, inductive reasoning format, or a syllogistic deduction structure and perhaps I will be able to perceive the connective "logic" that currently eludes me in these diverse statements.| why have you not agreed to my request? Is it because you can't find where you disagree? |
No, it is because there is no logical connection between your three statements. (1.) and (2.) might be the predicate of a syllogism but your "conclusion" (3.) in no way follows from (1.) and (2.).| In other words, your example seems to be a nonsequitur when it comes to the smoking issue, if not a red herring. |
I am sorry that you don't understand the relevance of my example, so let's just label it a pink herring and I will make a stronger statement to replace it. Choosing to smoke on a regular and long-term basis is also a choice to strongly risk serious damage to your lungs and many other organs, damage that may lead to a premature death. Consistent heavy smoking after understanding these facts is a choice to commit slow suicide. This is a form of cognitive dissonance and is not consistent with critical thinking.
I am not interested in proselyting this conviction, everyone should have the right to end their own life on their own terms if they wish. I would only hope that some smokers who are seriously rationalizing their habit would have the necessary intellectual stamina to think it through. If they have already made a firm decision to "trade off" a period of "enjoyment" for a highly probable period of suffering later in life; fine, I have nothing more to offer them |
At this point, Ricky, I would like to step off the witness stand for a moment and ask you a question. What is your point? Is it:
A. A purely Davian dissection of the parsing and minutae of argumentation, or is it-
B. a statement of position that the practice of smoking, like the practice of using street drugs, is not necessarily a bad thing and those who are opposed to it cannot really offer good and sensible reasons not to smoke,or..
C. If you have an entirely different purpose in mind than either of these, I would appreciate a statement of it.
If I was clear on what the purpose of the overall thrust of your argument was, I might be better prepared to respond to your questions.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 11:49:49 [Permalink]
|
The problem with the way this conversation is going should be obvious to everyone involved, but apparently it isn't.
The problem- No activity we can engage in is logical or illogical in and of itself. Our activities must be placed into a specific context before you can make that determination.
If, for example, you state that you want to live a long and healthy life while suffering as little infirmity as possible in your final years, then you smoking would indeed be illogical in that context. If you state that you don't give a shit about any of that, then smoking isn't illogical.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 12:56:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave
| How? Really, bngbuck, you must go from premise to conclusion for us, step by step, and show us how all skeptics must conclude that life is better than death, without exception. |
Well, I certainly have not said that all skeptics must conclude that life is better than death without exception. Any human being, skeptic or not, whose life is hellishly unhappy should have the right to end it. I have made that statement in these discussions and I mean it.
Really, Dave I am sure that you are right in your declaration of what I must do. However, because I am lazy and intellectually dishonest and cowardly I would prefer that you use an understandable model of rigid logic to point out exactly what my errors are in the statements I have made. And I may well conclude after an appropriate explanation that logic is not the proper vehicle to reach philosophical conclusions concerning life and death, this may in fact be not a realm of thought in which skepticism, logic, and critical thinking have any place at all.
So I am wide open to declare myself wrong and you and Ricky right if one or the other or both will demonstrate the correct way to look at and analyze the question of suicidal behavior, the smoking habit in this instance.
Now I fully understand the intellectual cowardice of this position, and that "I'm the one" who made the allegation and it's "up to me" to explain myself. But you see, I can't. I am not sufficiently trained in the rigors of Critical Thinking as you are, and I fail frequently when I try to practice it.
So, beforehand, I plead perfectly guilty to all charges of cowardice, dishonesty, and the like and simply ask you to clearly present your view of the correct way to look at the smoking habit for skeptics and non-skeptics alike. I am simply asking for enlightenment, not argument. Nor would I quarrel with your presentation. All kudos are yours.
If you would prefer not to do this, that is certainly understandable and I will preconcede that that it is your inalienable right to simply refuse, whether you are the boss here or not. I am the one that is running away from this argument and trying to get you and Ricky to justify unreasonable claims that I have made, or better, to clearly show that this is not a premise that can or should be logically analyzed.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 14:05:29 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
So I am wide open to declare myself wrong and you and Ricky right if one or the other or both will demonstrate the correct way to look at and analyze the question of suicidal behavior, the smoking habit in this instance.
|
See my post immediately prior to yours for the clarification you seek. Same for anyone else trying to argue that any behavior is inherently logical/illogical in the absence of context.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/07/2010 14:07:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 16:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I would prefer that you use an understandable model of rigid logic to point out exactly what my errors are in the statements I have made. |
I already did. You're using the naturalistic fallacy and an argument from popularity. You're making your conclusion part of the "Good Skeptics Code" and then using it as a premise, in full circularity. And then you're being inconsistent in your application of allegedly justifiable shaming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 21:19:16 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
| I would be willing to go half way with you and concede that starting smoking is usually irrational. |
Under what conditions would you feel that starting smoking is rational?
And the unsaid other half of your statement would imply that it is rational to continue smoking even if it was irrational to start?
Having been a heavy smoker for a good part of my life and having had considerable difficulty in quitting (I "quit" three times before it "took"), I personally do compare it to a drug addiction, although I have never had that (drugs) life experience. I certainly don't feel missionary about carrying a message of "quit now before it's too late" to anyone, and I seriously do feel that adults who elect to smoke, drink, use pot or dope - even the hard drugs - should not be prevented by law in a free society from so doing. If one favors enforcement of anti-drug laws, the question of where to draw a line always arises.
But because you are a smoker and also have considerable bona fides as a 'critical thinker' and skeptic (considerably more than mine), I am curious if you also agree with the consensus beginning to appear on the Forum that the tools of skepticism, logic, critical thinking and the like do not apply to a consideration of the entire smoking syndrome, whether one is considering whether to start or quit; and whether one is applying the analysis to oneself or to the concept as a generalized activity among the population.
By the frequent mention of "personal values", others on this forum have suggested or implied that I have some agenda to impose my personal value judgments upon others. This is simply not so.
However, the medical evidence cannot be ignored, and the discussion quickly devolves into a consideration of whether or not "critical" or rational thinking can even be applied to the cost/benefit trade off involved in a decision as to whether or not to smoke. Dave and Ricky argue that logic is not applicable to situations of estimating a current "pleasure" value against a probable future "pain" penalty.
I have no idea if Dave or Ricky smoke or not, nor do I know their ages. But I do know my age and life experience with smoking; and I know your age and that you have had some experience with smoking. I do not consider myself a particularly good technical skeptic, I have not heard enough yet from Ricky to judge, but you certainly represent a degree of technical expertise as critical thinker, skeptic, and logician on a par at least with Dave. And you smoke. Does it really just boil down to cognitive dissonance causing rationalization to take over, or is there more going on there in your personal case?
Because of your mature viewpoint, age, and significant emotional restraint; I would really appreciate your full appraisal of the concept of humans smoking. It is one facet of the grand panoply of perception that has occupied my mind and pen for years.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2010 : 21:58:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
...the consensus beginning to appear on the Forum that the tools of skepticism, logic, critical thinking and the like do not apply to a consideration of the entire smoking syndrome, whether one is considering whether to start or quit; and whether one is applying the analysis to oneself or to the concept as a generalized activity among the population. |
You're completely missing the big picture. It is impossible to take any fact and, through logic and critical thought, turn it into an "action item" without contextualizing it. E=mc2 tells us nothing about what to do with that knowledge. In the context of wanting to create a weapon, however, we can apply logic and science to the fact of E=mc2 and come up with logical steps of how to reach our goal.
Likewise, your insistence that smoking is "illogical" depends upon a context (prioritizing a long, cancer-free life above all else) that simply isn't a necessary context for any random skeptic to share. Without that context, "smoking is unhealthy" is just a fact that doesn't instruct any of us to do anything in particular.| By the frequent mention of "personal values", others on this forum have suggested or implied that I have some agenda to impose my personal value judgments upon others. This is simply not so. |
But it has to be so, because you can't (and haven't, and simply won't be able to) present any context for which "smoking is illogical" is true without it reflecting your personal goals.| However, the medical evidence cannot be ignored... |
And nobody is ignoring it.| Dave and Ricky argue that logic is not applicable to situations of estimating a current "pleasure" value against a probable future "pain" penalty. |
No, you're completely off in the weeds about what I'm arguing. We can definitely apply logic and empiricism to cost/benefit ratio calculations, but only after we select a goal against which to measure those things. We cannot do so in a contextual vacuum.| I have no idea if Dave or Ricky smoke or not, nor do I know their ages. |
And both of those things are utterly irrelevant to the arguments we're making. Whether I'm 19 or 90, a smoker or not, my argument is equally valid and sound. Be careful about adding argumentum ad hominem into the mix of logical fallacies you've already committed in this thread. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2010 : 11:25:55 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
I would be willing to go half way with you and concede that starting smoking is usually irrational. |
Bill:
Under what conditions would you feel that starting smoking is rational? |
Oh sure. As Dude points out, context is everything.
Let say that someone wants to live life to the fullest, which means of course, different things to different people, but in this case it includes smoking, drinking, ingesting industrial strength drugs and taking huge risks that most of us who are more conservative in our lifestyles wouldn’t even consider. Lets say you’re Hunter S. Thompson. He knew he was going to take himself out eventually. He made the choice to be Hunter S. Thompson and within the framework of his life and his lifes work, it was a perfectly logical choice. When it began to hurt him physically, he started work on a monument to himself, (a sort of final fuck you) which was subsequently built. And let me tell you. While he didn’t call himself a skeptic, he was IMO a mega skeptic. In his own way, by being who he was and what he was, he produced some of the most rational books and articles on politics and culture that I have ever read. We could indulge ourselves by saying he made bad choices that surely shortened his life. (One in particular. And it wasn't smoking.) But he squeezed more out of life than most of us will ever come close to no matter how long we live. For Hunter S. Thompson, smoking worked.
I could easily mention other risk takers. It doesn’t have to be just smoking does it? I mean, surfers taking off on fifty foot waves, driving race cars and running with the bulls in Pamplona can all do you in, and none of those things have to be done. None of those things can be compared with driving a car to work. Extreme risk takers say they feel more alive when they do those things, and who am I to argue with them? Who am I to call them irrational for taking those kinds of risks? I can tell you from personal experience that a stand up tube ride over a shallow reef is risky business. But I would do it again today if I had the strength and my knees would take it. Why? How can I explain what it feels like to look out from the inside of a breaking wave and make it?
Another thing those high risk activities cant be compared to are truly irrational choices people make when they don’t want to risk their life, like choosing to take a homeopathic as a cure for cancer, rather than turning to evidence based medicine, when what they want is to actually live a long and healthy life. That’s where skeptics come in. That's our turf and that's where we seek to educate those who are buying shit from liars, crooks or equally ignorant purveyors of total nonsense.
Then there are those who smoke as a part of a ritual having to do with whatever religion they happen to subscribe to. We may call the religion irrational, but those who are committed to it (aside from believing what they believe) and within the context of the religion are not acting irrationally. Any anthropologist will tell you that ritualistic behaviors are a part of who we are, whether it’s about religion or having to do with more general social constructs. Bill, when you were young, smoking was touted as being good for your health. And just about everyone smoked. And while that has changed, if you happen to be a part of a tribe living on the banks of the Amazon, and smoking is what the tribe does, it’s not irrational to smoke.
And for those reasons, and I’m sure there are others, I qualified my statement with the word usually.
Bill:
And the unsaid other half of your statement would imply that it is rational to continue smoking even if it was irrational to start? |
Not necessarily. Context has to be considered.
Bill:
But because you are a smoker and also have considerable bona fides as a 'critical thinker' and skeptic (considerably more than mine), I am curious if you also agree with the consensus beginning to appear on the Forum that the tools of skepticism, logic, critical thinking and the like do not apply to a consideration of the entire smoking syndrome, whether one is considering whether to start or quit; and whether one is applying the analysis to oneself or to the concept as a generalized activity among the population. |
In general, I think starting smoking with what we know now is foolish and illogical if we really don’t want to shorten our lives. Of course, at the age that most of us started smoking, we felt invincible and rationalized that we could stop at any time. And even middle age seemed so far off to us that our own mortality wasn’t even thought about, let alone an issue. Adolescents are like that. It’s amazing that so many of them survive into adulthood when you consider all the risks that adolescents take, oblivious to their own mortality.
As I said before, If you really are a critical thinker, and you understand the risk of smoking, and you accept that risk and smoke anyhow, your choice to smoke belongs to you. (Again, that is not in the same category as choosing a homeopathic over evidence-based medicine, because in that case, you have chosen to believe a lie.) If, on the other hand, you decide to promote smoking as something good, you have stopped thinking critically or you're an asshole, or both. And then there is this. Cognitive dissonance does play a role if you have actually convinced yourself that the negative consequences of smoking will more likely happen to other smokers and not to you. That again would be an example of not thinking rationally. As critical thinkers we should try as best we can to not lie to ourselves.
As an aside, let me ask you this. When we know that ingesting alcohol beyond the minimal amounts that some studies suggest might be good for you (while other studies disagree) why not have this conversation about critical thinking and imbibing in a socially acceptable and yet a well known toxic substance? (It’s not a secret that Christopher Hitchens was no stranger to alcohol.) Maybe I’ll bring it up at the “Skeptically Drinking” event that I am planning to attend…  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Christopher Hitchen’s cancer
