A Sceptical Mind

I saw a new TV-add from “Elsparefonden” this morning. As many before it, it tried to get people to think about how much power they consumed and thereby consume less to save the environment. Before I go on, you can watch the add here from YouTube:

So what’s my problem with this? Well, basically it’s just plain bullshit! Sure, power consumption will fire up energy production demands and thereby harm the environment because the energy production harms the environment. However the only reason why energy production harms the environment is because of low-quality materials like coal! Why the hell try to get people to go back in technological development by using less power, instead of just making our energy production more effective and clean (which would probably also be cheaper than all does damn adds all the time).

But apparently the global warming hype has become almost a religion, with fanatics fighting to jump back in time on a lot of fronts like electronics, food, industrial production etc. For some reason they believe the world population was better off with the status we had 50 years ago! Like for example a Linux guy I heard at FOSDEM 08, whom claimed that the German government should not use Windows Vista and instead use Linux – what was his reason? Vista uses more power and Microsoft was therefore fighting to destroy the environment…. Now, there are many valid arguments for using Linux instead of Vista, however saving the environment is definitely not one of them! It really pisses me off a lot of organizations are using this global warming frenzy to push their agendas, just by coating it with some environmental bullshit.

So – My conclusion? Shift all energy production to wind power and nuclear power – and stop irritating us with demands of lower power consumption. The only real reason to consume less power is saving money – power is expensive and will probably keep on getting more expensive for a long while, so if one can develop machines that consume less power, these machines will obviously be cheaper – this however has nothing to do with saving the environment.

I love debates! I really do.. I simply love discussing the facts, opinions and actions of one self and others – with the appropriate argumentation of course. This is something I’ve often loved doing with my family and friends (whom often hate me for it, as I’m kinda strict with correct argumentation) and of course in my work with politics in Radikale Ungdom here in Denmark.

But during all of this over enthusiastic opinion sharing I’ve often come across certain argumentation styles I’ve found .. well, ridiculous! Let’s take a few examples:

Arguments of the form “Everyone knows … “ or “Everybody agrees … “ are inherently false – Always!! No matter what subject you pick, no such subject will be known by all of the general population and no opinion will be shared by the general population. The mere fact that you are having the discussion with someone should tell you that your argument is inherently wrong, as that person clearly does not know or does not agree! This form of argumentation often comes up in emotional subjects like “Everybody agrees child molestation is wrong” – Which is obviously false, since some actively molest children. Or perhaps in another context “Everyone agrees that global warming is real” which is again obviously false, since some don’t believe this to be true.

There is a correct way to use the “Everyone .. something” argumentation form however, you just have to limit your population. So an argument like “All doctors agree ..” might be right, it’s definitely not inherently wrong. Also, in the same category, an argument like “All soldiers know guns can shot” would also probably be correct, while “Everyone knows guns can shot” isn’t!

Let’s take another example of bad use of argumentation: “Abraham Lincoln would have …” - Using what a dead guy might have said, is very very bad argumentation! Actually this is one that Jon Stewart already pointed out (very delicately I might add) on The Daily Show a few months back.

Sadly many actually do this! Like refer to Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, JFK or some other historical figure – but really, how the fuck do you know what that person thinks? Maybe he would have hated your guts?

Hmm another example: “Studies have shown…” A very commonly used argument for some given product or solutions correctness. Yet this seemingly normal expression is probably one of the worst forms yet, since it begs the question: “Which studies?”, and as long as that question can not be answered by the individual, his or her argument doesn’t count for shit! It’s all too common:

Normal guy reads newspaper, sees a headline “Studies show mobile phones cause HIV” and then unquestionably believes this snippet of information to be true. He then tells his friends, his girlfriend, his dad, his teacher, a couple of stoners and perhaps his dog (he’s probably kinda drunk). This then circulates even further with these individuals talking to other individuals, claiming that studies show mobile phones cause HIV and finally, 1 year later, people are so damn scared no one dares use a mobile phone for fear of HIV.

Using an argument like “Studies have shown … “ is the equivalent of saying: “As far as I know and believe …” - that is if you can’t mention the source of course!

So what was this post all about? Well – mainly it was about me getting some frustration out there .. I’m tired of people believing arguments like the above are worth anything, and I’m tired of people unquestionably believing everything they hear or read… So really my one goal here, my one morale, is simply:

Be sceptical – Question everything!!