MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
EARWIGS AREN’T PIGLETS Matthew Watkinson
“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” Douglas Adams SUMMARY •
A critical look at the nature of opinion.
X=X Distinguishing common sense from common nonsense can appear difficult sometimes, but it isn’t actually that hard. Indeed, it isn’t that hard at all, because every single claim about anything anywhere can be judged against the most fundamental benchmark of all: evidence. To be fair, many claims are beyond evidence, but we will come back to those later. Right now we will focus on those that aren’t and they fall into just two basic categories: mathematically logical and empirically verifiable.
MATHEMATICALLY LOGICAL “Earwigs aren’t piglets”
“Earwigs aren’t piglets” is a logical statement. Predicate and subject are clearly defined and the significance of the statement is self-contained. By giving the value α to earwigs, and the value β to piglets, the sentence even becomes a mathematical equation: α≠β
And because anybody can perform this calculation the claim is verifiable. If I say: “earwigs aren’t piglets” you can perform the same calculation and verify the claim: (α ≠ β) = (α ≠ β)
Our conclusions will match (hopefully) and we can both agree that earwigs are very definitely not piglets. The conclusion is logical and as long as ‘earwigs’ continues not to mean ‘several young pigs’, the claim will continue to equal the sum of the evidence: X=X
Of course, if society decides earwigs and piglets are interchangeable terms then we have another issue, but that’s a language problem and even if it did occur we would still be able to agree that Forficula auricularia is not Sus scrofa domestica.
EMPIRICALLY VERIFIABLE “Earwigs exist”
Empirical statements are based in reality. They’re natural, rather than supernatural, and “earwigs exist” is a good example. Its validity can’t be assessed using mathematics, but it can be
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
validated on a successful earwig safari. An expedition that yields just one single specimen will confirm their existence and validate the claim and that’s the defining characteristic of empirically verifiable claims: they require external evidence. Earwigs exist = Earwig has been found X=X
But external evidence is also their biggest disadvantage. Personal verification of a secular statement will always be affected by personal experience. If you haven’t seen an earwig there will be a conflict between personal and cultural evidence. This may seem harmless in the case of earwig folklore, but it’s actually a fundamental issue, because if you don’t know you don’t know you might think you do know, and what sort of opinion will you form then? For instance: “earwigs don’t exist” is an opinion, but it’s not based on the available evidence. It may mean that earwig safaris have become too expensive (or dangerous), but whatever the reason this opinion must involve not knowing you don’t know and, as areult, it does not represent reality. It is hyposignificant (less than the sum of the evidence). “Unicorns exist” is also an opinion, but it’s not based on the available evidence either. It may mean that unicorns are impossible to see (because they’re invisible)1, but whatever the reason, this opinion must involve not knowing you don’t know and, once again, it is less than the sum of the evidence. It’s also hyposignificant. And many claims are the same: any loon can generate something from nothing with no information and they’re not limited to earwig denial and unicorn mythology: “the planet is 6000 years old”, “humans should be vegetarian”, “homeopathy works” etc. etc. They’re all hyposignificant because none of them equal the sum of the evidence.
X≠X+Y Statements that aren’t verifiable can’t be tested . They may be true, but because they include components that are beyond evidence, they can’t be verified either way. They’re unverifiable and unverifiable statements also fall into just two categories: subjective and extra-secular.
SUBJECTIVE “Earwigs are better than piglets”
Subjective statements are beyond evidence. They occur in the mind, rather than the external world, and they’re based on applied value rather than experimental (objective) evidence. For example, “earwigs are better than piglets” is a subjective statement. If it was claiming that earwigs are better at living in rotting wood than piglets it would have an objective reference point and a fairly concrete point. Unfortunately, however, it isn’t so it doesn’t. Instead it just demonstrates how people can find more than the evidence reveals and thus that some claims say more about the claimant than the claim. Earwigs and piglets ≠ Earwigs and piglets + Earwigs rule and piglets suck X≠X+Y
Similarly, “I like that rock more than that tortoise” tells us more about the subjective value of tortoises and rocks to that particular tortoise-hating-rock-fanatic than it does about tortoises and rocks. And “I’m cold” reveals nothing about the ambient temperature, other than it’s worse than a higher temperature according to that particular human thermometer. It’s all relative and 1
NB Proving a negative is impossible. If the world was completely covered in totally reliable unicorn detectors we may get close, but if we don’t find any that may just mean they have all gone on holiday.
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
all subjective statements are the same. They’re not about evidence, they’re about value. They’re about perspective and the critical concept is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic values. “what does a piglet mean to itself?” is a question about the intrinsic values of the piglet for example. What does X mean to X?
Whereas “what does a piglet mean to me or someone who really likes earwigs?” is a question about extrinsic values. What does X mean to Y?
It’s a simple matter of perspective, but it’s also one of the most important distinctions in modern philosophy, in my opinion (subjective, unverifiable). For instance, there are people who cherish pet rats while they poison wild rats, but what’s the difference? There isn’t one. They’re exactly the same thing. Each rat has exactly the same intrinsic value, even though the extrinsic values are completely different. One is treasured and one is persecuted and that can only involve disproportionate extrinsic valuation, even though. Similarly, some people believe that all things are equal. They believe that everything has equal rights, and that includes inert features such as mountains. But what do the mountains think? Nothing, they don’t think anything at all. They’re mountains. The perspective is relative and thus the generous donation of equal rights has absolutely nothing to do with the mountain itself: it is extrinsic. And besides, if all things are equal the rights a mountain assigns us are as important as the rights we assign the mountain, and what rights do mountains assign us? None whatsoever, which means that everything has full rights and no rights at exactly the same time. It’s a knotted mess of intrinsic nothingness and extrinsic lunacy. “Killing for a reason is better than killing without a reason” is another example, because the decision clearly has nothing to do with the victim. A dead chicken doesn’t care whether it was killed for food. It doesn’t think: “I’m glad my death wasn’t pointless.” In fact it doesn’t think at all; it’s dead. So why do people feel better? It can only be because of extrinsic value. Their argument is always the same: “The chicken was meant to be food”, but there’s absolutely no way the chicken would agree (whether alive or dead at the time of asking). X≠X+Y
Unfortunately however, there’s still no way of invalidating the claim. There’s still no way of proving that a roast chicken is as happy as a rotten chicken or vice versa, because,as mentioned previously, you can’t prove a negative. You can show people that the claim isn’t based on the available evidence... X≠X+Y
...but you can’t prove that the conclusion isn’t valid, because the value is beyond evidence. Y
You can’t prove that earwigs aren’t better than piglets, or that mountain equality is not important, and somebody else can’t prove that they are. Subjective values are extrinsic and unverifiable. And subjective statements include anecdotal statements. Not because historical recollections
MATTHEW WATKINSON • WEB: http://www.fishsnorkel.com • TWITTER: http://twitter.com/fishsnorkel
are always subjective, but because they might be. They might involve some degree of misrepresentation and without independent evidence there’s no way of knowing. 99% of people might recover following therapy for a disease, but the remaining 1% will tell a very different story. Their testimony will be misrepresentative and without access to everybody else there’s no way of knowing. “God speaks to me” is another example. It may be true. But then again it may not (he does tend to select those who need to hear him speak). “...humans promiscuously attribute agency to many things and the belief in God is simply an outgrowth of a general tendency to perceive agents in the world around us.” Kurt Gray and Daniel M. Wegner, Blaming God for Our Pain: Human Suffering and the Divine Mind (http://ht.ly/1Xx6L)
Apparently, non-believers can’t hear him because they don’t want to, but why? Is he a tiny little mouse god? It seems unlikely that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent lord of everything could be silenced by lack of belief but that’s the claim. And there’s no way of proving otherwise. Anecdotal statements may be true, but they may also be a function of subjective perspective.
EXTRASECULAR “Earwigs are clear evidence of the devil and therefore toilet trolls rule the world”
Extrasecular statements are the opposite of empirically verifiable statements. They’re supernatural rather than natural and not based in reality. For example, “earwigs are clear evidence of the devil and therefore toilet trolls rule the world” is an extrasecular statement. Earwigs represent secular reality (X), but the remainder is extrasecular and beyond reality (Y). It may be true. Earwigs may be the secular representatives of a supernatural demon that can elevate the mystical inhabitants of the u-bend to the zenith of world power, but there’s no evidence to support the claim. The conclusion is much more than the sum of the evidence. Earwigs = Earwigs + Demon powered megalomaniac potty trolls X=X+Y
And such claims aren’t just limited to the supernatural. Opinions based in reality can also contain inflated conclusions. “Earwigs will be piglets tomorrow” is borderline insane. It’s an absurd prediction and guaranteed to be false, but can we prove this? Given that tomorrow cannot be evidence today, is conclusive proof actually available? No, it’s not. The prediction can be verified according to the evidence available today, but the reality cannot. It’s beyond evidence. Forecast = Forecast + Certainty X=X+Y
And that’s the nature of unverifiable statements: they exceed reality; they are hypersignificant (more than the sum of the evidence). They’re easy to identify but impossible to deny. We can’t prove the devil doesn’t exist or the future isn’t certain; we can’t prove that cold isn’t hot or that earwigs won’t ‘oink’ tomorrow. Disproving hypersignificance is impossible. It’s beyond reality. It’s beyond evidence. In the hypersignificant safe zone opinions can always claim more than the sum of the evidence. Earwigs can be better than piglets, old books can be more than just old books, life exists can be more than the existence of life. It’s a sanctuary for fantasy and hope. An opinion might be outrageous conceptual pig swill, but if it transcends evidence it just can’t be conclusively eliminated.
“A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche