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.