Defining Our Terms: Untruth

With the presidential cycle upon us, it is becoming painfully clear that we need to sit everyone down and explain language to them. This means YOU if you watch FoxNews, MSNBC, read Reddit, or basically any other political blog. Remember, this simple truth:

NOT EVERY NON-TRUTH IS A LIE.

Before calling someone a "liar", "blatant liar", or "stinking liar", consider these definitions:

Lie: Speaking an untruth while knowing it to be untrue, with an intention to deceive. (ex. "Jimmy broke the vase, but lied and claimed that Donny did it, hoping to avoid punishment.)

Mistake: Speaking an untruth, because you do not know it to be untrue. (ex. "The Bush administration was mistaken in claiming there were WMDs in Iraq.")

Pander: Speaking with the intent to flatter or reinforce the beliefs of an audience, without special focus on precision. (ex. "President Obama pandered to the Democratic audience by saying that George W. Bush was the worst president in history.")

Argue/Debate: Making a point in an attempt to convince the other side, or defend your own position. This may include data which is not fully accepted by both sides. (ex. "Mitt Romney cited the Rasmussem report in his argument for lower taxes, but critics dismiss the study as flawed.")

Blather/Bloviate: Speaking without thinking - often while tired and distracted - which may lead to pandering, argument, and mistakes. (ex. "After his 10 day whirlwind tour, John McCain wearily blathered on, at one point claiming Senator Obama was born in Kenya.")

Thank you. Please be more careful in your rhetoric. You may now return to your regularly scheduled election season.

So true, it hurts

I know I'm ready for some

Deep Thought of the Day: Is it okay to teach choose a lie?

This article is coming off of viewing the film BE KIND, REWIND on DVD. Some of these comments may be construed as spoilers. So if you are concerned about that, you may wish to skip this post.

Watching the movie this week, it ends off with a short section whose basic point is, "When a lie is more beautiful than reality, choose to believe the lie." This reminds me of another movie which essentially had the same moral: HOUSESITTER with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn. Both showed people living in a less-than-ideal society and seeking to escape despair by embracing a lie. They are shown, in fact, triumphing by rejecting truth and reality.

While I guess this is somewhat in line with a Hollywood philosophy, where the whole industry is based on creating fantasies and fictions. It seems like a fairly dangerous and insidious way of thought. It encourages us to have contempt for truth, to actually have a contempt for any idea or situation which is contrary to our preferences. It is narcissism to think that our desires have anything to do with truth. True science and philosophy is seeing the world as it is, and analyzing it that way.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is it wrong to think it better to embrace a lie when the truth is undesireable?

Mythbusting Common Health Worries

Most people I know fall into one of two categories: (1) they panic over every new study which tells you that your favorite food causes cancer, or (2) they are so overwhelmed by the serial health panics that they simply have stopped listening. Well, Health Magazine is mythbusting today.

Myth #5: Feed a cold, starve a fever
The old wives' tale has been a staple since the 1500s when a dictionary master wrote, "Fasting is a great remedie of feuer."

The truth: "Colds and fevers are generally caused by viruses that tend to last 7 to 10 days, no matter what you do," Vreeman says. "And there is no good evidence that diet has any effect on a cold or fever. Even if you don't feel like eating, you still need fluids, so put a priority on those." If you're congested, the fluids will keep mucus thinner and help loosen chest and nasal congestion. A little chicken soup spoons in some nutrients, as well.

Let the relaxation and sanity commence... until the next health panic.

Repeat after me...

Changes to Global Warming Calcs

Readers of this Blog know I am not a fan of the Global Warming Movement. It is not that I do not think activists sometimes raise good points - I think Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was well-done and thought-provoking - but they all-too-often are willing to latch onto any hyperbolic notion in order to try and sway opinion. It is hard enough to believe humans could have actually changed the global climate without bringing foolishness like "The Day After Tomorrow" into it. (Great special effects, though! Loved the instra-freeze of New York City.)

An example of a Global Warming scientist doing things right has emerged. In this article, a Y2K bug was found in the calculations of one of the more influential scientists in the movement, and instead of either (1) claiming that an error was impossible or (2) blaming it on a conspiracy, the scientist (and his critic) simply corrected the data and republished it. The result? Scientifically, the data is changed little - the overall deviation changes 1% or so. But rhetorically it changes radically. 5 of the hottest days in history have moved from the 90s, to prior to World War 2.