Free associating on the Metro back home, it becomes clear that what the new rebooted Trek really needs is a re-do of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home but dealing with a more contemporary environmental threat than the need to save humpback whales from extinction. For example, The Enterprise could travel back in time to try to urge the Senate to pass strong climate change legislation. I’m sure Spock would have some choice words for the illogical nature of the filibuster rule. Or maybe Scottie could teach us about some dilithium-based sources of clean energy, spurring a green jobs boom.Funny. But also dissonant. Within the fictional Star Trek universe, the future's climate is doing just fine. So why would they want to go back in time to alleviate an environmental disaster that did NOT materialize? Either the dangers of global warming had been greatly exaggerated, technology had advanced to the point where it wasn't a problem, or some combination of the two. Going back in time for this is a solution in search of a problem.
No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.(Via LGF)
The term was coined by Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who sees a newspaper article about a series of sex crimes taking place in Brighton, and responds that no Scotsman would do such a thing. When later confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that no true Scotsman would do such a thing, thus disavowing membership in the group "Scotsman" to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for not being a Scotsman. However, this is a fallacy as there is nothing in the definition of "Scotsman" which makes such acts impossible.
A modern example may be found at the would-be Conservative encyclopedia, Conservapedia. The founder of the site, Andrew Schlafly, has repeatedly used this fallacy to defend his personal concept that Conservatives, by definition apparently, do not practice deceit. When confronted with examples of deceit on the part of Conservatives, he routinely disavows that these individuals are Conservatives at all, on the basis that Conservatives do not practice deceit. He instead assigns them to the group liberal, regardless of evidence to the contrary. The use of this fallacy is underlined by the fact that prior to revelations of deceit, the same individuals would have been hailed as good Conservatives.
Phrases such as "un-American", "unChristian" or "inhuman" are widely used in politics and media to distance onself from a subject, defining them as outside the bounds of what the speaker considers to be truly 'American', 'Christian' or 'human' behaviour. These phrases strongly suggest the No True Scotsman fallacy, since the use, for example of "un-American" to describe specific political activities by some American citizens implies some special definition of "American" beyond mere nationality.
President Obama has drawn not-infrequent comparisons to the Spock character. Do you see any similarities there?Great, the first trekkie president? During the campaign, especially before Palin entered the stage, much was said about his lack of experience. Opponents in the Clinton and McCain camps argued that superior head knowledge couldn't make up for this. But if he's versed in interstellar diplomacy that's gotta count for something, right?
I’ve met him twice. The first time was a couple years ago, very early on when he had just announced his candidacy. He was in Los Angeles, speaking at a luncheon we were invited to. There was a very small crowd — minuscule compared to the crowd that he gathered later — at a private home in Los Angeles. And we were standing on the back patio, waiting for him. And he came through the house, saw me and immediately put his hand up in the Vulcan gesture. He said, “They told me you were here.” We had a wonderful brief conversation and I said, “It would be logical if you would become president.”
disagreement with policies of a state (or policies toward the state) is not the same as prejudice against people who live in that state. To discern some similarities with prejudicially based views does not mean the views one is discerning are themselves based on ethnic prejudice. Criticism of policies of Arab states (or of the leaders of the stateless Palestinians) is not to be equated with prejudice against Arabs or Muslims, even though such prejudice is quite evident, including among many Americans. Criticism of policies of Israel is not to be equated with anti-Semitic (or to be more precise, anti-Jewish; Arabs are Semites too) sentiment, even though anti-Semitism unfortunately is still very much alive and in some places even growing. Criticism of policies of China is not to be equated with prejudice against people of East Asian ethnicity, even though such prejudice has been very much in evidence in some ugly chapters of American history. And so forth.As with any other ad hominem argument, to hurl a charge of ethnic prejudice at someone on the other side of a policy discussion generates only heat, not light. It suggests the hurler’s own substantive case is weak. And to affix the label of ethnic prejudice where it does not apply risks devaluing laudable efforts to expose it and combat it where the label does apply.
Political Browser | washington
