Unreal:  Students Justifying Beliefs

    “Argument” to me is essentially just reasoning, because when I write out an argument I'm writing out my own thinking on an issue.  I participated in a debate in the sixth grade where the instructor required us to argue the opposite of our convictions.  I no longer admire people who do that.

I see the pedagogical utility of the exercise: among other things, you learn to see the logic of other perspectives. But as an adult nothing annoys me more than people who take positions they don't actually find credible themselves.

 

    Sometimes people think they believe something, while their behavior indicates otherwise.  This happens to all of us.  But when I find myself arguing opposite to the perspective I was arguing ten minutes before, I take that as a sign I've become concerned with winning, or with showing off my racionating skills, with something other than Truth.

 

I often raise objections to my own convictions. Isn't this the healthiest attitude?  Rarely am I on more dangerous ground than when I've made up my mind.  Playing the devil’s advocate for purposes of sharpening your thinking and attaining Truth, however, is not the same as building castles in the air.

 

    So now my reasoning (including feelings) is my writing.  I want the main difference between my reasoning and my writing to be that my writing is more explicit, organized and rigorous, because I've put more time into it. 

In practice it's hard to separate working my explicit beliefs out on a keyboard from my rhetorical presentation.  It's just that working out the genuine beliefs takes precedence for me over rhetorical considerations.

* * * *

Our assumptions cause weak arguments and many disagreements. Intellectual honesty, however, demands we acknowledge that we can’t get off the ground without making assumptions.

Too many people don't get this. They treat assumptions - even conclusions - as facts.  The real question is, which assumptions does the evidence best support? Which assumptions about the evidence does other evidence best support?

The question is not: How do I remain consistent?

The question is not: How does this sound?

The question is not: How do I defend this position?

     I schematize ideal reasoning as a movement from perceived evidence ---> via perceived implications  ----> to a conclusion/judgment.  The rest of the thousands of other considerations that an in depth look at rigorous reasoning will reveal only buttress, question, qualify, or otherwise elaborate points along this progression.   Any inquiry genuinely aimed at uncovering knowledge has the overall shape of a movement from evidence to judgments about the implications of that evidence. You look, listen, sense, then you decide on the significance of what you've perceived.

    Yet students of writing, rhetoric and argument are taught to craft a strong thesis first and foremost.  The claim comes first.  Their job, they're told, is to justify that judgment with evidence. 

  Schools have been teaching this way for decades. (For centuries? For the millennia since Aristotle?). Now everyone on earth goes around making bald assertions and then defending them.  Just look at the Internet or the Congress.  I do the same thing. I'm doing it now.

 Is it any wonder the world is so screwed up?

    I'm not saying this is all bad.  Following an up-front assertion with evidence exemplifies one rhetorical approach to conveying your personal Truth.  Monotony bores, so constantly laying out the evidence, followed by its implications, followed by a judgment, would make for boring writing.

 

Writers may present the findings of their reasoning in a variety of ways.  And they may reason as they see fit. In fact the possibilities are endless.

But why are they reasoning? To convince, as I'm doing now? Or to inquire and learn, as students should spend most of their time doing?

Writing doesn't just help us to persuade. Writing helps us to learn, by articulating our thinking and getting it out there as an object. Once it's an object, we can look at our thinking from some distance. We can manipulate it to our liking.

By writing, we can find out what we think.

* * * *

     Unfortunately, by the nature of our brains evidence usually must first pass the gatekeeper of our existing beliefs before we even notice it, let alone accept it.  That shouldn't stop us from trying to keep an open gate, so we can follow where the facts lead us. Argument, fundamentally, is not about justifying judgments. It's about reaching judgments.  An argument is a line of reasoning.

In the real world our reasoning jumps around.  Our trains of thought visit and revisit all sorts of stops on the tracks of argument.  But on our vacation journey to the sunny paradise of justified conclusions, we should start from the evidence station. And we should return to that station often.

 

Unreal:  Prison Healthcare

          The courts have ruled that the 8th amendment guarantees those incarcerated for committing crimes access to adequate health care. In fact, many prisoners lack this access. This means that prisoners who should be paying their way in prison are prevented by illness from working. Prisoners with untreated mental illnesses and addictions endanger the communities they return to, their families, and corrections officers.

          Chronic illnesses worsen when left untreated. But the cost of healthcare both in and out of prison threatens taxpayers. To fix prison healthcare we need to explore the effects of current policies on all involved.

The Prison Healthcare Context

Rehabilitation or Recidivism

          According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics over 95% of those incarcerated in the U.S. will eventually be released into their communities. In fact annual releases now outnumber admissions.  Thus it is in our interests to rehabilitate those who commit crimes.

          According to Columbia University 85% of prisoners have substance abuse issues. For many, their addictions led to their crimes in the first place. Untreated, these addicts don’t wait until they’re released from prison to return to drugs and crime; illegal substances are usually available inside. Thus many addicts continue abusing substances and committing crimes both inside and outside of prison walls as if they’d never been arrested. Prisons are becoming unmanageable for corrections officers, while society outside prison walls remains unsafe.

          About half of those incarcerated show symptoms of serious mental illness (National Institute of Mental Health). Most mentally ill prisoners don’t receive adequate psychiatric treatment . What’s more, the prison environment can worsen psychiatric symptoms. Untreated mental illness, like addiction, increases the likelihood of recidivism.

          When left untreated, both mental illnesses and addictions create a cycle of dysfunction in which children of prisoners grow up with addictions and mental illnesses, then turn to crime themselves.

          In short, society is punishing lawbreaking in a way that creates more lawbreaking.  Why should prisoners, corrections officers, families and society all suffer from the effects of treatable illnesses?

Dollars and Sense

          Aside from drugs and mental illnesses, over one third of U.S. prisoners suffer from some chronic disease or infection (Society of Correctional Physicians). Because chronic illnesses worsen without treatment, and are often only treated once prisoners get released, these illnesses end up costing society more than they would have were they treated in prison.

          Meanwhile, health care is consuming an increasing share of corrections budgets. Reasons for this include:

          • The aging prison population
          • Communicable diseases in the close confines of prisons
          • The prevalence of substance abuse and mental illness among prisoners
          • Challenges inherent in delivering healthcare to prisons, such as distance from
             hospitals

          Enrolling prisoners in health care plans, and ensuring more oversight and accountability could help lower costs. Releasing those too sick to pose a danger to society could also ease the financial burden. Telemedicine could lower costs. Allowing more volunteers, such as those from Narcotics Anonymous, into prisons to offer counseling would provide more care at a low cost.

          What else can be done to provide effective, low cost health care to prisoners? Don’t prisoners have this right? What can the stories of stakeholders teach us? How can we collaborate to solve this problem?

Unreal: “Reality” Shows

          It would seem to take a world of cojones to characterize as “Reality” a show in which pretentious people, paid for their performance, put in contrived situations, create drama for the camera. Actually it takes a world of self delusion and con games. Such is the reality of “reality shows.”

          Recreation, entertainment and play time by definition need not be limited to the real, the useful, the serious. So I see nothing wrong with watching such shows. But don't let the marketers kid you; actors by definition are professional phonies. These aren't documentaries, these are scripted dramas.

          Drama involves artificial conflict. This is true whether your spouse creates a public scene at your favorite restaurant over and extra fifty cents on the tip, or someone on Duck Dynasty, taking a jab at common decency, claims to base intolerance on “religious” beliefs.

          The word “religion” comes from the Latin, signifying “Unite again.” Unite with what? Unite with the Divine, with your neighbors, with all of existence. If anyone can point to any traditional world religion whose basic tenets don't include a call for spiritual connection – for love and compassion - please let me know.

          I've pointed out in previous posts that scientifically and spiritually we aren't really separate beings in the first place – in reality. All religion asks of us is to recognize reality and act accordingly.

          Actors like everyone else have every right – every legal right – to express their opinions. Entertainment companies have every right – every legal right - to broadcast these opinions. The public has every legal and moral right to ignore or follow, criticize or praise them. No one involved loses their status as Divine beings no matter their decisions.

          It's just that some of us aren't acting like the Divine beings we really are.

          Being nonjudgmental about dissenters from our personal truth doesn't come naturally to any of us. Loving our neighbors - or at least acting with common decency - takes hard work. We all need breaks. Winding down by escaping into idealized, funny, dramatic, adventurous, scripted – that is imaginary - worlds needs no justification.

          Calling such fantasy “reality,” on the other hand, doesn't justify substituting pretension for integrity. Calling these actors “down home, religious, and grounded” because they speak their “truth” and a lot of other phonies agree with them doesn't justify intolerance. It all justifies an apology.

          Entertainment, yes. Reality, no.