A COLUMN THE FALLACY OF PUBLIC The other day I came across a column in Public signed by a Vicenç Navarro. The content was outrageous, that is, within the strictest normal in the newspaper. What struck me was the résumé of the author was more than a standard ad columnist.
On its website, VN defends his political exile status of the dictatorship, but provided no additional information on the subject, and in this case there are several issues that move into doubt. First, who was exiled in 60, when the intensity of the repression had fallen sharply. Second, that the dictatorship was the detail of waiting ended VN lead the race before his exile (it was only then that the latter went to work at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, which leads one to suspect that, rather than an exile, was an Erasmus). Thirdly, the return from exile was not the death of the dictator, but almost 20 years later, which could lead to establish certain similarities between VN and Lt. Onoda . Keep in mind that a Franco curriculum is highly profitable, and therefore a certain distrust is healthy.
Vicenç Navarro is a fervent supporter of Historical Memory, ie that the state use public resources abundant to convince people that the story was developed by fantasies of Vicenç Navarro. According to this, the transition was not such, but with the right transaction. In fact, VN is convinced that Spain still live in a true democracy, but a crypto-fascist state. What do you understand by democracy VN? That, at least, we shall find out.
In the article that has given rise to this entry, VN would argue that democracy should not honoring equally to civil war dead, as some were good and others bad. Obviously there were ups and downs, but for NC cutting line coincides exactly with the dividing right and left. This view of things, based on the belief that the left represents Good, it is not unusual among their ranks, then or now. Nor, obviously, democratic. Faced with such conviction, the specific election results often represent a much less relevant issue, and this may explain the socialist response to the electoral triumph of the right in 33. But if this belief is not uncommon, is most striking that someone dares to state it so clearly because usually labeled as outlaws. Perhaps that is why VN in extremis try to rationalize their position: the good were those on the left, but not because they were left, but because they were fighting to restore democracy. The argument, therefore, is at the mercy of good willingness of readers to decide if they eat without flinching that the communists, socialists, anarchists and nationalists were convinced democrats. And, back to October 1934, the revolution would not contradict the assumption of the Socialist Democratic zeal? VN is ready for this question, and responds emphatically: no. Period. VN apparently sees no need to provide additional arguments.
This is your web , in case you want to browse.
interests me now comment on one of the fallacies discussed by Scruton: The zero-sum.
zero sum is that situation in which the sum of the profits of some participants is balanced to the sum of the losses of others (ie, what is participants earn about losing others). This is the case, for example, poker. Obviously, not all situations in which we find ourselves are zero-sum, but an optimist unscrupulous insists on extending the concept to all fields. Take the case of prosperity. The fallacy operates by adding the level of individual agents in a given time, cavalierly ignoring the different paths that may have led to different results. Then averaged for imagination, and, once defined the midline, all that's left over will reveal, therefore necessarily have obtained their position grabbing his hand to that below it. Thus, the success becomes evidence of guilt.
The fallacy of zero sum, applied to the study of the weight of the members of a family in which one is anorexic, leads to the conclusion that in fact what happens is that the rest are eating food the thinner. And that is exactly what makes the unscrupulous optimistic look at the international level, where the fallacy is applied with real fervor. Given the evidence that some countries achieve reasonable levels of prosperity while others stagnate in misery, the optimist does not try to analyze what is the recipe that leads to success, but it appears that guilt.
Note the reversal of the sequence prodigious intellectual fallacy causes. Get an advanced society depends on a delicate recipe made from different ingredients: the political system, economic system, the educational and civic leaders and population, the strength of laws and institutions, public authorities control , religion, level of corruption ... However, the zero-sum fallacy makes the best indicator that things are being done well on a test of guilt: if a company is not progressing because they have achieved social alchemy adequate, but because they exploited others. And just as the fallacy of blaming the companies that have done good homework, disclaims responsibility for those who have not done. Thus, an open and democratic society can be criminalized, while another ruled by corrupt dictators may well be seen as a victim.
Al insult the recipe successful, the application of zero-sum fallacy prevents most backward societies progress, offering instead a justification for its failure and a channel to express their resentment. But in reality, it seems that the unscrupulous optimistic not so concerned about the progress of disadvantaged societies as blaming the companies prevail, and that brings us to the origin of this fallacy.
As I said in a previous post, Scruton puts it, like the rest of analyzing, emotions arising in our caveman past. However, I think the origin of this fallacy is particularly close: the destruction of religion Marxist reality. More specifically, the zero-sum fallacy may be an attempt to save the failure of the prophecy of the pauperization (according to which capitalism would end up polarizing the entire wealth of the privileged few and a huge mass without resources), transferring it to the international arena. This gets the optimist barely keep their beliefs, and continue providing its power of some evil to blame for its failure.
