Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.2: Parry of the rationals…

A few key traits of apophenic arguments…

1.) Non-sequiturs: These are rather easy to identify, but the weight given to them is what may be used to distinguish the truly apophenic argument/opinion from a mild logical mistake. Rather than an awkward bump in the road to logical illumination, said non-sequiturs are used to “prove” the validity of the opinion- usually accompanied by a knowing smile and a sagacious nod.

2.) A priori suppositions: these are presented in a pathetic attempt at attacking the baseline knowledge of the listener. Assuming that their opinion represents transcendental truth known to all intelligent persons, empirical evidence is thus not required. When pressed, however, the user will typically respond with random factoids. While this is obviously inimical to the definition of a priori knowledge, the very attempt at inclusion proves the inefficacy of the speaker.

3.) Specious numerical validation: Perhaps the very essence of an apophenic argument, the use of numbers and statistics is a dicey proposition at best. As mentioned in earlier posts, numerical data is appropriate only when the source is verifiable. Likewise, the application of these values is normally flawed in the apophenic argument.

An example…

Snob: President X is quite obviously the best president we’ve had in one hundred years! (random opinion tossed into the wind for public consumption)

Elitist: That seems rather presumptive- he’s only been in office for two years.

Snob: Well, the world sees us as a new nation, you know? (Non-sequitur)

Elitist: What does that have to do with your statement that he’s the best president we’ve had in the past one hundred years?

Snob: Look, any intelligent person knows that the improvements and changes he’s made have had a significant impact on the quality of life in this country. (A priori supposition)

Elitist: What are the specific changes and improvements to which you refer? More to the point, what empirical data do you have to support your contention- or I am to such a nebulous statement obviously devoid of data as a universal truth?

Snob: Well, his current approval rating is 52%. (Specious numerical validation)

Elitist: Therefore, based on the fact that slightly more than half of the minute fraction of the population who had nothing better to do during random times of the day than respond to an obnoxious telephone have indicated that they are “generally pleased” with the president’s “performance,” you have deduced that he is therefore “quite obviously the best president we’ve had in one hundred years.” Is that your contention?

Snob: Well, er, everybody knows…

Elitist: I see. Please go away.

It is essential to remember that a typical snob is concerned only with socially validated opinion (note that this validation is conferred by whatever cognoscenti sub-group to which her or she belongs) rather than the truly rational. Recognizing this mental feebleness is merely the beginning; a categorical imperative for any Elitist worth his or her Bordeaux is to give such an opinion exactly the amount of respect it so richly deserves: none whatsoever.

Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.1: Attack of the insensates…

Having noted the snob’s reluctance to defer to others (save the currently acceptable icon of intellect- typically a burned-out activist type who has published some “challenging” novels…whatever that means), he or she will resort to any method, no matter how base or irrational to defend his or her assertions. In this area, a snob has a distinct advantage over an elitist: he or she has most likely developed several rationalizations (one hesitates to besmirch the word for just this sort of confrontation. While the speaker may attempt to affect a patronizing tone and revert to the standard sobriquets (well, I think you’re over-simplifying the issue here or I think you’re being a bit naïve) when engaging a listener of dubious intellect, this approach is rarely used vis-à-vis a confirmed elitist. Hazarding an educated guess, perhaps this tendency stems from the visceral feeling as to exactly how an elitist would respond to such provocations: a small smile and a serene expression that serve to confirm victory without a single word uttered.

To return to the central issue at hand, the snob will edge towards apophenia in order to provide the “logical” foundations of his or her opinions. Unfortunately, this is a tendency that the typical elitist will find intolerable; given that one of the standard aforementioned principles is that of logical rigor and rational derivation, the reaction is quite understandable. Having noted that the speaker is on less-than-sure intellectual footing, yet making an odious attempt to appear quite to the contrary, an attack is normally imminent.

Apophenia is best defined as the predilection for drawing conclusions based on random or meaningless data. In the view of the present author, its use is more damning than ad hominem attacks or straw-man employment: rather than make an appearance as the fallback position of the weak-minded, its usage implies that the speaker finds the listener sufficiently dim-witted as to swallow such tripe without comment. Apophenia is therefore logically fallacious (thereby negating its place in meaningful discourse) and personally insulting. As such, it deserves no quarter; neither does its user.

How, then, to recognize an apophenic argument and then parry it in such a manner as to reduce its user to a gibbering mass of inadequacy? I shall provide a few key traits of such an argument, and then present a hypothetical exchange that utilizes said characteristics, replete with the appropriate responses…in the next installment…

Rampant apophenia in contemporary discourse 11.0: Reality held in abeyance…

Whereas the hoi polloi may evidence “pet peeves,” the true elitist is at his or her vituperative best when a deeply held principle has been violated. Unfortunately (for the recipients of the ensuing stream of abuse), the typical elitist has a veritable plethora of non-elucidated principles. One of the darker alleys in which to meet the enlightened few is that of the “informed opinion.” As I have written on this subject in previous installments, I see no reason to affect the reprint of a lengthy diatribe. Suffice it to say, there are entirely too many opinions out there, trumpeted loudly by the minstrels of idiocy to an otherwise tone-deaf audience. There is a specific occurrence in these brief interludes of idiocy, however, that I find particularly vile: apophenia.

A slight digression is needed at this point. As further evidence of the intellectual chasm that separates the elitist from the snob, it is useful to consider how each views the concept of personal opinion: while the elitist will accept any opinion that is proffered with strong reasoning and a solid foundation of logic, the snob merely concerns himself with whether or not the opinion is “right” in accordance with the current vogue. As a result, the most belligerent clashes of opinion often occur between the two; what the elitist values in the intellectual prowess of a given speaker is typically ignored by the snob, in favor of the degree of concentricity with their personal pop-culture hero.

To be fair, I take no issue with the unspoken opinions of others; however, if one airs said opinion it becomes part of the public realm. I suppose my question to those who feel hurt and abused when their opinions are attacked (no matter how gently) would be: why did you open your mouth? If one has no intention of drawing commentary, then two what end is opinion-based oratory? If it’s “just something you needed to get off (your) chest,” then please do not be surprised when I appear to be ignoring you. Absent some sort of emotional connection between the two of us, I find no social contract requiring that I reply to words merely tossed in the air without due regard.

Granted, the masses tend to defend their opinions only so far as the limits of their underlying knowledge take them. At such a point, the conversation typically devolves into pat phrases such as well, that’s just my opinion and everyone’s opinion counts (I have addressed the obvious fallacies of this statement in earlier installments). The snob never genuflects in such a manner- to do so would imply that other opinions are valid as well, regardless of their deviation from the “approved” opinion.

More to follow…