Debate: Playing Games with Equivocation

Debate: Playing Games with Equivocation

Sunday, August 03, 2014

Over the past 20 years I have studied philosophy.  I have read the greats like Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Locke, Hume, etc, along with some current thinkers like John Searle and Christopher Norris.  Outside of philosophy – and often inside – a recurring theme happens in debates among intelligent people.  That is Equivocation.   Equivocation is using the same word in differing senses, often with the intent to deceive, although I would prefer to say it is self-deception; people often want to deceive themselves on an unconscious level in order to avoid grappling and facing the Existential Vacuum.  Making drama out of nothing is a common way to distract ourselves from our looming death and the (possibly) meaninglessness of everything.

One encounters equivocation in debates when one person is using words in one sense and the opponent uses words in a different sense.  Then a “debate” happens, and those who are paying attention notice clearly that a debate is not happening, but an emotive ritual where people pretend to debate, but all is theatrics and rhetoric. 

Equality

The most common example of equivocation is the use of the word equality.  I have rarely, if ever, seen this word used in any consistent manner in any debate I have observed.  Furthermore, I have never seen anyone clearly define or even describe this term. 

Let us tease.  What is equality?  Is it equality of income?  Is it equality of power?  Is it equality of talent?  Is it equality under the law?  The shocking truth is that none of these concepts exist in the real world: they are impossible.  So, what are we talking about when we say equality?  Socioeconomic equality?  Perhaps, but that is not possible either.  The only equality that I am aware of is in Chemistry where four hydrogen atoms here equal four hydrogen atoms there.  Physically, this is about the closest we can come.  In mathematics, we can argue that x = 2.  But, in debates about equality, there are no debates about math or Chemistry.  So, we return to the ill-defined term equality where debaters enter into a pretentious ritual of combat, when there is no real debate happening.

Quantum Mechanics

Recently I have decided to restudy Quantum Mechanics.  Scientists claim that it is a counter-intuitive world of paradoxes.  However, upon closer inspection of the “scientific” writings, one sees a problem of equivocation and lack of clear thinking.

Stephen Hawking is his most famous book, “A Brief History of Time,” in the section on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle makes a very basic error in thinking clearly.  He explains the measurement uncertainty of a particle’s velocity and position.  This is, of course, a very simple principle; there is nothing mind-blowing about the width of a light wave, its velocity, and its capability and limitations in measuring a particle’s position and velocity simultaneously.  It is like having a ruler with centimeter tick marks: I cannot measure accurately anything more precise than within a centimeter with such a ruler.  It is that simple – in principle.

But, Hawking takes a simple-minded measurement limitation and then makes a metaphysical claim that the position and velocity of the particles are indeterminate.  This is not a justified conclusion, and is a basic error of equivocation from someone who is esteemed for his intellect.  Perhaps he is trying to shock the audience for advertizing effect; let us hope this is the case.

Philosophy of Science

Of course, we philosophers know what is going on here, but the scientists are, as usual, clueless.  There was a strong influence among scientists at the beginning of the 20^th century toward Empiricism.  You must keep your eye on the measurements, and the theory must accurately predict measurements, and that is all you do.  Do not make metaphysical speculations about the physical reality!  Well, it is a physical scientist’s job to make claims about physical reality; a physicist had better make physical claims about reality or he is not a physicist – or a very bad one.  I have an idea!  Let us speculate about the reality of parallel universes – something we can never measure!  Uh, oh…

Of course, these are old problems in the Philosophy of Science, but it gets hilarious when scientists attempt to get into philosophy without the proper training.  Again, we can hope they are merely trying to shock an audience, and that they are not being serious. 

The Path Forward

So, what do we very smart people do about this?  We must be very clear about the definition of every term within a statement.  However, we do not want to get caught up in the opposite: analysis paralysis - where concrete-bound minds get stuck in the weeds of irrelevant details (I call this weighing turds).  But, we want to be clear within context of the study. 

What if someone is using rhetoric?  Well, play their game against them.  Smart people can wield the weapons of rhetoric like a nuclear weapon when we study the basics of Rhetoric.  Learn how to stand in front of a crowd and move them – it is not that hard.

Freddy Martini