Click here to bypass the introduction, and head straight into the article, or here if you'd like to skip a discussion of why some would be excluded from this observance, and go on to the next section of the introduction. (The webring list for this page is below).

Jan. 31, 2001

Let us start by imagining a story, set back some time ago. Imagine that Thomas Edison has just invented the lightbulb. He is pitching the new invention to a group of investors. He has explained to them in detail why it works. As he closes the presentation, one of the investors pipes up, and goes "Great Talk, Tom. Just one thing. We'd like to use your design, but with corn silk instead of carbonized cotton filaments".

Edison blinks in bewilderment. "Sir, as I just told you, cotton was the one thing I tried that worked ..." "Yes, Tom, but look at how those Southerners have treated their liberated slaves. Deplorable, just deplorable, that Reconstruction business. Can't have any of that. Now those Iowans, on the other hand, those are good, down home folk who'll treat a man right." "Sir, that is beside the point". "Tom, are you telling me that the tears of those suffering people are beside the point? What kind of monster are you? Gentlemen, let us take our leave of this man." All depart, as Edison is left shaking his head in disbelief. Move forward to a much darker twentieth century. The end.

What went wrong in this story is clear to all but the most politically correct and confused individuals, in this case (which is why we use this story as an illustration). The investors have confused the concept of caring about an issue with that of agreeing with a particular response motivated by it.

One might run through the process of refining a particular design, find that it makes certain choices mandatory, and decide that the implications of those choices are so unpalatable, that one goes back to the drawing board, and tries something else. That might be legitimate. What is not legitimate is concluding an argument and then altering the conclusion in an unexamined, ad hoc fashion to patch up those aspects of the solution one doesn't like, declaring that it just HAS to work and that anybody who disagrees must not care enough about one's concerns. To do so, is bad logic. It is as if one thinks of reality as being an overindulgent mother who will run around after her more careless children and fix everything before they have a chance to notice that any of it is broken. But reality is under no obligation to indulge us in this fashion or any other. The belief that it is, is known as a willingness to "beg the question". In the case above, the question of whether or not the light bulb will still work, after the investors made their ad hoc addition to the process by which it was developed.

Click here to continue.