Testability People who spew and spout facts to support a position do so in one of two forms. They will state their proposition in a risky or non-risky form. You must learn, in the process of critical, linear thinking, to distinguish between the two. If you want to learn to tell if a speaker is trying to feed you a bunch of "cock and bull" when they spout "a mountain of evidence" in support of a particular position, listen for how they state the proposition" ?in the risky or non-risky form. A properly stated, well constructed, and honest proposition is always stated in the risky form. A risky proposition puts itself "at risk" by inviting testing by experimentation. An improperly stated, poorly constructed, and "sometimes" dishonest proposition is always stated in the non-risky form. A non-risky proposition defies the testing by experimentation-it cannot be shown to be true or false. Examples of Non-Risky Forms: "I do not understand your choice to live in a country that is systematically exporting its poor, its sick, and its criminals to the United States of America."[1] The proposition could be true. However, since there is no way to read President Vicente Fox's mind or to know his motives, then it cannot be shown to be either true or false. What possible experiment could we construct to test this hypothesis? And, I mean an experiment that would be able to be repeated by impartial third-party scientists with no biases in the Immigration issue (peer review) and arrive at the same eventual conclusion. This statement, "Mexico is systematically exporting its poor, its sick, and its criminals to the United States of America", is nothing but Speculation! This convenient non-risky propositional form is the mainstay of the Minuteman-like groups' argumentation (in my opinion). Examples of Risky Forms: I cannot find this quote so I am going to try to do this from memory. Someone told me that where he had lived, in a Texas border town, there was a constant conflict between the U.S. citizens and the Mexican illegals. The conflict was for jobs that both groups were willing to do but the illegals were able to land the jobs at much lower wages (for which the employers and not the illegals should have been held responsible!). This story has the makings for a good argument. A proposition, from this story, could be stated like this: "In such-and-such town, illegal Mexican Migrant Workers took jobs the local U.S. citizens were willing to do." This proposition invites testing via experimentation! It is a proposition in Risky Form. This does not make the proposition true or false but it gives the proposition the chance of testing for its veracity! Someone could come along and devise an experiment to see whether this happened or is happening in that Texas border town. Then some scientist, with no stake in the issue, could retrace the steps of the first experiment, to see if he or she would get the same results. This is how one obtains proper evidence! To use any other method results in collecting a truckload of speculative facts and stats--they cannot be proven either true or false. Most of what I have read coming from the Minuteman-like groups and individuals is stated in the risk-free form. Let me give you an example and you try telling me if this is a Risky or Risk-Free form: "...that migrant workers are not coming to America to find a better life for themselves and their families, but rather to reclaim the Southwest for Mexico." ?[2] If you think this proposition is in the Risky form, then how does it invite the testing via scientific experimentation? What experiment could you devise to test this proposition? What experiment could you come up with that scientists with no stake (biases) in the outcome could repeat the steps of your experiment and arrive at the same results? This is a proposition stated in the Risk-Free form. The Minuteman group equates its position with TRUTH itself, making any dissenting view "liberal trash". This makes it highly improbable to hold any sort of intelligent discourse with them whether their position is true or not. This explains why they regard anyone who wants to challenge their position as someone bent on the destruction of America. In other words, there couldn't be a serious dissenter questioning the group's mountain of evidence unless he or she had some nefarious motives in mind. "When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God."[3] [1] Phony-Baloney Detection Lesson #4 [2] Americans hunting Migrant Workers, by Douglas Bower [3] Leviticus 19:33,34 |
