From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
—Aetius.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag concordance.[1]</big> animals,[1] NepheshWikipedia's W.svg



[note 1]

The one


(ch 7) Genesis 1:27thumb|right|165px| Jesus with seven horns and seven

Causality in its simplest form is the relationship between cause and effect. In science, one's main objective is to find causal relationships, or in simpler terms "This causes that". Most of modern science is based on causal relationships and they are the core pillar of good science. The old mantra "correlation does not imply causation." is often what separates the science from the pseudoscience, the scientists from the cranks, and the medicine from the bullshit; causality is the glue that holds rational thought together..

History of causality[edit]

One of the first quotes about the concept of causality comes from Plato.

Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.
Timaeus by Plato[3][4]
Aristotle's Four Causes of a Table.

Aristotle would expand upon Plato's idea of causality in Physics and Metaphysics where he argued that there were four causes, namely the material, formal, efficient, and final cause.[5] Thomas Aquinas would later argue that "from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects"[6] and the Kalam cosmological argument uses a similar line of reasoning. Both Aquinas's argument and the Kalam cosmological argument expand upon Plato's belief that everything has a cause. That is a philosophical position called universal causality and whether it is true is debatable. The philosopher Wes Morriston offers a detailed counterargument in his paper Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause? where he argues that "when applied to the beginning of time, the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause is not clearly true."[7]

Wes Morriston is hardly the only skeptic when it comes to causality. David Hume was chief among the philosophers to challenge the nature of causality promoted by the Ancient Greeks, Aquinas, and Aquinas's scholastic colleagues. He called into question the very ability of the human mind to understand it.

We have sought in vain for an idea of power or necessary connexion in all the sources from which we could suppose it to be derived. It appears that, in single instances of the operation of bodies, we never can, by our utmost scrutiny, discover any thing but one event following another, without being able to comprehend any force or power by which the cause operates, or any connexion between it and its supposed effect... All events seem entirely loose and separate. One event follows another; but we never can observe any tie between them. They seem conjoined, but never connected. And as we can have no idea of any thing which never appeared to our outward sense or inward sentiment, the necessary conclusion seems to be that we have no idea of connexion or power at all, and that these words are absolutely, without any meaning, when employed either in philosophical reasonings or common life.
—Of the Idea of necessary Connexion Part II by David Hume[8]

But as skeptical as he was, Hume did not believe causal relationships were beyond rational comprehension. Instead he concluded that humans were able to induce cause and effect relationships through careful observation of contiguity, succession,[9] and constant conjunction.[8][10] He would also formulate the problem of induction when he noted that "our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion of causes and effects" as it is "impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason, why we shou’d extend that experience beyond those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation."[11]

In more modern times, the discovery that time is relative has had profound implications for the understanding of causality. In physics, the space time interval is what defines the flow of causality and reversing its direction causes the direction of causality to be reversed. For things going slower than the speed of light, such a reversal is impossible unless one gets sucked into a black hole.[12]

Causality in science[edit]

Causal inference is the process in which someone can use data to claim there is a causal relationship.[10] This is central to most of science, and it is literally science at its core. Some people seem to forget about the part where the data has to support a causal relationship and not just a correlation between the data points. Causal inference is often very important in statistical data, as you are taking a large pre-existing dataset to come to a conclusion, and not a controlled test environment.[13]

In science, three commonly accepted conditions for establishing a causal relationship are time precedence, relationship, and non-spuriousness.[14]

  • Time precedence — Time precedence refers to the notion that for something to be considered a cause, the cause must have occurred before the effect.[14] For example, if one suspects that hot temperatures are a cause of sweating, hot temperatures must have been present before the onset of sweating for it to be considered a cause, not after. Variable X simply being before effect Y is not sufficient for X to be considered a cause of Y and a failure to recognize this fact can lead to the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.
  • Relationship — For X and Y to be in a relationship, they must be variables, not constants, and they must have codependency, not independence. In our sweating example, both hot temperatures (variable X) and sweating (effect Y) are variables, and they are codependent as people exposed to hot temperatures (X) should sweat (Y) more often than people exposed to cold temperatures. As temperatures above the mean (X) would be expected to induce sweating above the mean (Y), hot temperature and sweating are said to have positive covariance. If instead variables X and Y have a negative covariance such as cold temperatures and sweating, an entity above the mean for variable X would be expected to be below the mean for variable Y. If X and Y have a covariance of zero, then X is not predictive of Y and vice versa. Variables with a covariance of zero are independent of one another.[14]
  • Non-spurious — Even if variable X has both relationship and time-precedence with effect Y, this still does not mean a causal interconnection has been established as the interaction between X and Y must also be non-spurious. For example, if ice cream eating and pool attendance have positive covariance and ice-cream eating occurred before going to the pool, this does not mean that ice cream eating caused one to go to the pool. Instead both X and Y could be caused by the third variable of hot temperature (Z) and therefore the interconnection between X and Y is spurious and not causal.[14] Failure to recognize spurious interactions can lead to the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, a.k.a. correlation does not imply causation.

In Multilevel modeling of social problems: A causal perspective, R. B. Smith identifies a stable association between variables and the successful elimination of external factors as being two necessary components for the establishment of linear causality.[15]

Two structural models used with causality are hierarchical and nonhierarchical models. The difference between them is that hierarchical models lack feedback loops whereas nonhierarchical models have them. Feedback loops occur when X causes Y and Y causes X, or when they effect each other through one or more other variables. For example, X causes Y, Y causes Z, and Z causes X. A statistical methodology called path analysis can be done with standardized hierarchical models but the tracing rule of path analysis does not apply for nonhierarchical models.[14]

If there is a causal relationship between variable X and effect Y, then X can be one of a couple different kinds of causes.

  • Necessary causes — With necessary causes, cause X must be present for effect Y to occur. For example, a naturally conceived birth (effect Y) in humans necessarily requires a sperm to fertilize an egg (cause X). The presence of cause X, however, does not necessary require effect Y to occur. For example, the female may be on birth control thereby preventing cause X to lead to effect Y.
  • Sufficient causes — With sufficient causes, the presence of X necessarily implies the occurrence of effect Y, but effect Y does not imply the presence of X. For example, chopping a person's head off with a guillotine (cause X) necessarily implies the occurrence of death (effect Y). However just because someone died (effect Y) doesn't mean that their head has been chopped off (cause X) as they could also have been killed by hanging, firing squad, electric chair, lethal injection, stoning, or burning at the stake.
  • Contributory causes — With contributory causes, the presence of cause X makes the presence of Y possible but not with 100% probability. For example, eating refried beans (cause X) could be a cause of flatulence (effect Y), but this effect could also have been due to the soft drink one drank with it.[16]

The Bradford-Hill Criteria[edit]

In epidemiology, causal relationships can be determined via the Bradford-Hill Criteria. There are 8 parts of this criteria, each one strengthens the possibility of causal relationship between the cause of the disease and the effects of it. The criteria are as follows:

  1. Strength of the association — The stronger the association the more causal the outcome.
  2. Consistency of findings — Finding must apply in different conditions.
  3. Specificity of findings — There must be a one-to-one ratio of cause and effect.
  4. Temporal Sequence of association — The cause must precede the effect.
  5. Biological Gradient — The more exposure, the higher the disease rate.
  6. Biological Plausibility — Is there a biological mechanism for what is happening?
  7. Coherence — Does it match up with what is already known about the disease?
  8. Experiment — Does removal of exposure change the outcome?[17]

Philosophical concepts related to causality[edit]

  • The arrow of time — Human perception of causality always flows with the direction of time as causes always precede effects. Whether the present moment is physically distinct from the past and future or is merely an emergent property of consciousness has been one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Research into quantum computing, still very much in its preliminary stage, suggests that the arrow of time may be an emergent phenomena. Jayne Thompson, a researcher of quantum computing, had the following to say about causality and time.
The most exciting thing for us is the possible connection with the arrow of time. If causal asymmetry is only found in classical models, it suggests our perception of cause and effect, and thus time, can emerge from enforcing a classical explanation on events in a fundamentally quantum world.[18]
  • Determinism versus indeterminism — Many physicists hold to the belief that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic and for phenomena such as radioactive decay only a probabilistic description of causality can be given. In other words, Aquinas was wrong about causes being clearly demonstrated for every effect. Sometimes events just happen due to chance and therefore are not deterministically caused. The non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics is not universally accepted however. Einstein famously dissented and promoted a hidden variable theory that would explain why quantum mechanics appeared to be non-deterministic. Louis de Broglie would also initially dissent in 1927, but he would never fully develop his theory. David Bohm would resurrect it in 1952. Known as pilot wave theory, the de Broglie–Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics, the theory is a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics that some physicists are actively researching.[19][20][21]

Causal fallacies[edit]

Given the inherent difficulty of establishing causal relationships, people make causal fallacies all the time. This is particularly true of the social sciences where ethical prohibitions on human experimentation may prevent the elimination of external factors that corrupt the data. Even B. F. Skinner limited his experimentation to animals (despite rumors to the contrary).

The latin term cum hoc ergo propter hoc is often used to describe the fallacy that occurs when one incorrectly uses correlation as the basis for causation.[22] The fact that there are at least five different ways A could be correlated with B only one of which is A causes B contributes to the prevalence of this fallacy.[16] If one assumes that A is the cause of B when B is actually the cause of A, then one has committed a reverse causation fallacy.[22] If one assumes A is the cause of B due to correlation when both A and B are caused by variable Z, then one has committed a fallacy due to a joint effect or confounding variable.[23][24] If one assumes A is the sole cause of B when B is caused by a complex variety of factors, then one has committed the fallacy of oversimplification.[22][23] Even if A primarily causes B, the failure to comprehend that B may also cause A can lead to fallacies. For example, an example of oversimplification of predator-prey relationships would be believing that more predators (A) will cause the numbers of prey (B) to be reduced but failing to recognize that lower numbers of prey (B) also leads to lower numbers of predators (A). Another fallacy is assuming that A is a cause of B when the correlation could simply be due to coincidence. This is a fallacy that commonly occurs when people mine data looking for statistical correlations in which case it would be an example of a post-designation fallacy.[25]

The term post hoc, ergo propter hoc is often used to describe the fallacy that occurs when one assumes that because A preceded B, A caused B.[22] This fallacy occurs because some people place too much emphasis on time precedence while pretty much ignoring the other requirements for causality. Andrew Wakefield is a perfect example. Just because vaccinations occur before the discovery of autism in a child does't mean vaccines cause autism as you also have to have relationship and non-spuriousness which Wakefield failed to prove. In fact, vaccines have been extensively studied and there is no positive covariance between vaccines and autism. But do you know what does have positive covariance with autism? Rubella.[note 2] You know, one of the diseases the MMR vaccine is supposed to prevent.[26]

See Also[edit]

External Links[edit]

In 1952 David Bohm created an alternative interpretation of non relativistic QM—perhaps better thought of as an alternative theory—that realizes Einstein's dream of a hidden variable theory, restoring determinism and definiteness to micro-reality. In Bohmian quantum mechanics, unlike other interpretations, it is postulated that all particles have, at all times, a definite position and

0 QM is widely thought to be a strongly non-deterministic theory. Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says wha

One of the underlying assumptions in this argument is , a

as it may come into conflict with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. 

Thus, not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate connexion of causes and effects, but even after experience has inform’d us of their constant conjunction, ’tis impossible for us to satisfy ourselves by our reason, why we shou’d extend that experience beyond those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation. (T. 1.3

What is our idea of necessity, when we say that two objects are necessarily connected together?... I turn my eye to two objects supposed to be placed in that relation, and examine them in all the situations of which they are susceptible. I immediately perceive that they are contiguous in time and place, and that the object we call cause precedes the other we call effect. In no one instance can I go any further, nor is it possible for me to discover any third relation betwixt these objects. I therefore enlarge my view to comprehend several instances, where I find like objects always existing in like relations of contiguity and succession. He w

The need for constant conjunction leads to the problem of induction. For example if the sud

and he would go on to explain what could e kow which has veome kow as the copy principle.


hings like virtual particles and radioactive decay may or may not be caused.

Must the Beginning of the Universe have a Personal Cause? (Part 3) Luke Muehlhauser

  The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

Matter: a change or movement's material cause, is the aspect of the change or movement which is determined by the material that composes the moving or changing things. For a table, that might be wood; for a statue, that might be bronze or marble. Form: a change or movement's formal cause, is a change or movement caused by the arrangement, shape or appearance of the thing changing or moving. Aristotle says for example that the ratio 2:1, and number in general, is the cause of the octave. Agent: a change or movement's efficient or moving cause, consists of things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement. For example, the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter, or a person working as one, and according to Aristotle the efficient cause of a boy is a father. End or purpose: a change or movement's final cause, is that for the sake of which a thing is what it is. For a seed, it might be an adult plant. For a sailboat, it might be sailing. For a ball at the top of a ramp, it might be coming to rest at the bottom.

Covariance is a measure of the relationship between two variables. If X and Y have a covariance of zero, then X is not predictive of Y and vice versa. If instead X and Y have a covariance that is positive, then an entity that is above the mean for variable X would be expected to be above the mean for variable Y. If instead X and Y have a negative covariance, an entity above the mean for variable X would be expected to be below the mean for variable Y. In the sweating example, hot temperature (X) and sweating (Y) have a positive covariance as temperatures above the mean would be expected to induce sweating above the mean. There are several factors that can effect the size of covariance. One factor is data outliers. In our sweating example, if there is a person suffering from heat stroke in the sample, then this would be a data outlier as the person would be exposed to hot temperatures but would no longer be sweating. Another factor

[PDF]Correlation and Causality - of David A. Kenny

Causal Inference Causal inference is the process in which someone can use data to claim there is a causal relationship.[1] This is central to most of science, and it is literally science at its core. Some people seem to forget about the part where the data has to support a causal relationship and not just a correlation between the data points. Causal inference is often very important in statistical data, as you are taking a large pre-existing dataset to come to a conclusion, and not a controlled test environment.[2]

The Bradford-Hill Criteria In epidemiology, causal relationships can be determined via the Bradford-Hill Criteria. There are 8 parts of this criteria, each one strengthens the possibility of causal relationship between the cause of the disease and the effects of it. The criteria are as follows:

Strength of the association — The stronger the association the more causal the outcome. Consistency of findings — Finding must apply in different conditions. Specificity of findings — There must be a one-to-one ratio of cause and effect. Temporal Sequence of association — The cause must precede the effect. Biological Gradient — The more exposure, the higher the disease rate. Biological Plausibility — Is there a biological mechanism for what is happening? Coherence — Does it match up with what is already known about the disease? Experiment — Does removal of exposure change the outcome?[3]

,. (2011).

Smith(2011) identifies two requirements for the establishment of linear causality: a stable association between variables and the successful elimination of external factors

Science has often employed a reductionist approach to understand linear cause and effect relaitonships by

In the case of vaccinations, it was Andrew Wakefield and associates inability to understand that just because vaccinations occur before the diagnosis of autism doesn't mean that vaccines cause autism that lead to the vaccine and autism quackery.  You also have to have correlation and non-spuriousness which doesn't hold true

Misandry within feminism[edit]

The most notable misadranist within feminism was Valerie Solanas for her SCUM manifesto, promotion of gendercide, and shooting of Andy Warhol, but their have been other brave feminists to follow in her footsteps.

  • Ti-Grace Atkinson - As president NYC chapter of the National Organization of Women (NOW), Atkinson defended SolanasWikipedia's W.svg as"the first outstanding champion of women's rights" and "a 'heroine' of the feminist movement." This was after Solanas shot Warhol.
  • Sally Miller Gearhart - An author of feminist science fiction novels, Gearhart wrote in her non-fiction essay The Future — If There Is One — Is Female that "the proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." One option she advocated for was male infanticide.[27]
  • Mary Daly - Perhaps best known as the feminist professor who lost tenure for violating title 9 as she refused to admit male students into her classes, Daly also said the following in response to Gearhart's position. "If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."[28]

Several people have noticed and criticized elements of misandry found within feminism many of whom have no connection with the Men's Rights movement. One such critic and definitely not MRA advocate is the porn-hating feminist Andrea Dworkin. In her essay Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea, she spoke of an event that took place in New York City as part of Lesbian Pride Week in 1977. Dworkin gave the following description of the speaker's presentation.

Amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women came this ideological rot, articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself (means stated on this particular evening: developing parthenogenesis as a viable reproductive reality)

The audience applauded the speech. Dworkin shamed them by saying "I am a Jew."[29] Another two critics are the religious studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young. In their book Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture they made a comparison between the modern discourse on gender and the historical interactions of Jews and Christians.

Even though misandry is clearly visible to anyone with eyes or ears to hear, it is not visible to many people as a problem. On the contrary, most people ignore it. In fact, they have found at least three ways of doing so: they try to excuse it, trivialize it, or even justify it... The same problem that long prevented mutual respect between Jews and Christians, the teaching of contempt, now prevents mutual respect between men and women.[30]

Author and journalist Cathy Young is yet another critic (again having no connection with MRAs). In her article Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism, she defended misadry as being a word, criticized the actual neologisms feminists use (specifically mentioning “mansplaining,” “manspreading” and “manterrupting"), and said that feminists were using “man” as a derogatory prefix.[note 3] She also added "Dismissing concerns about wrongful accusations of rape with a snarky “What about the menz” is not a great way to show that women’s liberation does not infringe on men’s civil rights."[31]

History of Misadry[edit]

defiito aaraham disposaility femiism split

Paul Nathanson, Katherine K. Young, Wendy McElroy, and the author bell hooks have all oticed and criticized elemets of misadry foud withi femiism.

As a term, "misandry" is not a strict analogue of "misogyny," because the use of the term "misandry" is much more commonly restricted to concrete hatred or contempt held by individuals (cf. "man-hating feminists"), as distinct from the abstract "institutionalized" variety. This is because women have historically had little opportunity for direct influence on such institutions as the law, and thus no opportunity to build anything resembling "institutional misandry."

The men's rights activist Warren Farrell is illustrative of this split. Warren ega as a part of the National Organization for Women (NOW) amd was elected three times to the Board of Directors of its N.Y.C chapter. He then grew disillusioed with the orgaizatio, citig NOW's oppositio to the presumtio of joit custody as a momemt of truth. He wrote several ooks explaiig his positio amd susequetly was protested y femiists. A video of a portest that occured at the Uiversity of Toroto ca ve see [here].

Notable misandrists[edit]

My philosophy - figure out a differet title.

In past articles and essays, I have mostly focused on the philosophy of other people rather than my own philosophy, with the notable exception of the essay on memetics. I am now going to explain to you the ethical philosophy that I use which is a form of utilitarianism. (My epistemological philosophy is still in development though I do have the essential ideas already fleshed out.) My beliefs are essentially a combination of Einstein's ideas on the is-ought problem, Bayesian utilitarianism, memetics, and game theory. As I will be referencing Albert Einstein's religious beliefs and my views on memetics from time to time, it may be useful for you to read those essays before reading this one. I will also attempt to use my philosophy to provide some clarity on gender issues as I feel this area is in desperate need of someone who can address the issue philosophically and can countermand the current sophists "addressing" the issue.

The Individual ideal - Empowerment[edit]

It is a simple idea, but one of the things I learned from reading Einstein's views on religion is that it is a mistake to view ethics from only the societal perspective. Instead what one must do is break down ethics into its essential components. For Einstein, these components were the individual and communal ideal, and mutual human relationship. I have adapted this to say that the components of ethics are the individual, interpersonal, and communal ideals. It is the same thing, just worded slightly differently.

In the case of the individual ideal, I asked myself "What could this ideal possibly be?" When the question is asked in this way, I think that the answer is obvious. The individual ideal is empowerment. Consider, for example, someone stranded on a deserted island. If this person had one signal flare and he could either fire it unproductively at a passing plane or wait a couple of days and use it productively when a boat passed by, which should he do? The answer almost everyone would come to is wait for the boat, and the underlying reason for that answer has to do with the fact that that is the action that would lead to the stranded person's empowerment.

When contemplating how to promote the individual ideal within a society, the best notion that I have come up with is the Quaker concept of "Truth-to-power." For those of you who may be unaware, the concept of "Truth-to-power" came into being in response to Hitler and McCarthyism. Quakers are pacifists and there were some of them in Germany trying to help out. These Quakers would do things like give coffee and blankets to Jews on trains headed to Auschwitz. After the war, they learned what happened to those Jews and this lead to fundamental problem with their faith. In essence, the question was "How can pacifists fight the evil of totalitarian regimes?" A few years later, McCarthyism took hold in the United States and the Quakers saw obvious parallels and questioned how to counteract this new threat. Their response was the concept of truth-to-power, the idea being that if one could get truth to prevail over McCarthy-inspired hysteria, then one could avoid the problems associated with totalitarianism. Exactly how effective it was then is debatable, and it does't really have enough of an epistemological foundation to serve as a way to achieve the communal ideal as it was originally intended to do, but I like it as a way of addressing the individual ideal. People have individual truths, subjective and unique as they may be (the homosexuals and heterosexuals individual truth is not the same, for example), and I am of the belief that empowerment is achieved when these individual truths are recognized and achieved up until the point were they start to conflict with the interpersonal ideal. Truth-to-power has the potential to aid in this process by creating a more honest and open society, but realistically that can only happen by getting rid of those people who would use that honesty to exploit others (either by social exclusion or more drastic measures).

A cell-phone ap to address the problem of rape? Before I address the issue of rape culture, I want to expose you to a quote from Albert Einstein that has hugely influenced the way I view culture, religion, and social values.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
— Albert Einstein Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948.</ref>

Before dismissing this as religious mumbo-jumbo, please note that Albert Einstein was not talking about religion in the classical sense. Rather what he was talking about was the ability of cultural institutions such as religions, schools, or things like the media to impart social values onto a culture.

I am a atheist amd it has iflueced my eliefs.

Memes are

How a Bayesian Utilitarian Would Address the Issue of Rape

Revelations brought about by the Me Too movement have shown that there is a cultural problem with sexual violence directed toward women. Men have also correctly pointed out that blaming men in general for the actions of a few men is the equivalent of blaming all Muslims for the actions of some Muslim terrorists. Both are logically valid positions. Another issue pertaining to sexual violence is determining if a rape occurred. Women have correctly pointed out that defense lawyers blame the victim in a courtroom setting and men have correctly pointed out that women have false accused men of rape which has led to false convictions. Both blaming the victim and incorrectly believing in false accusations occur because the court is trying to determine the statistical probability that rape occurred though they don't use that language because they are lawyers (a.k.a. professional sophists). So what can be done to correct the present set of circumstances? I have a simple solution – create a cell-phone ap.

In order to explain my position, I need to first explain how my ethical philosophy works at a societal level.

Memetics and Cultural Change[edit]

The Basic Idea[edit]

The basic idea is that some memes are better than other memes. Both the meme that drinking radioactive water is good for you and the meme that one can hide from a nuclear blast are wrong[note 4], but from a utilitarian perspective, the meme "Hide from a nuclear blast." is a lot less wrong than the meme "Drink radioactive water." Thus this memetic change results in a societal improvement.

The idea of using memes to create societal improvement works best with the philosophy of utilitarianism because you have to view the effect of ideas on a continuum towards an ultimate end which for utilitarianism is "the greatest happiness principle". This end enables a utilitarian to argue that certain memes like our radium example are bad because they don't help achieve that ultimate end. In essence, utilitarianism provides a framework for the ??? fallacy; the meme "Radioactivity good" is more fallacious than the meme "Radioactivity bad" due to the greatest happiness principle objective.

The aforementioned framework enables one to address issues of "culture". Consider, for example, gun culture. Some memes pertaining to guns are going to result in less happiness for the society as a whole than other memes and one can argue that those memes that result in less happiness for the society are wrong.[note 5] Thus, in order to improve our society, we have to root out the harmful memes and replace them with better memes.

In Regards to Sex[edit]

I outlined two separate issues when I first described the current cultural problems we are having in regards to male-female interactions. One is "How do we address sexual violence as a society as a whole?" and the other is "How can we determine if sexual violence has occurred?" I shall now attempt to use memetics to address both of these issues.

Memes pertaining to how sex occurs[edit]


Creating a cell-phone ap to address the "false accusations as proof" and blaming the victim problems[edit]

We already have some safety measures when it comes sex such as “Wear a condom (and not the radioactive kind.)” What I am proposing is that we add one more, namely always use an ap to take a cell phone video of you and your sexual partner both stating that you consent to sex. Once you have that video, the ap then enables you to use an on/off consent function. If one is in an on again and off again relationship with someone, one simply needs to move the on/off button of the ap to the appropriate position to indicate the current status of the relationship. If one had a one-night-stand, then one can place the consent into a “Must make a new consent video for future sexual activity,” category so that no accidental or malicious “consent” can occur. It would also send the new categorization to the person one slept with which would be a clear indicator of the status of the relationship. If instead one is now going steady and is in a healthy relationship with someone, one can place the consent into a category “Must make a new video to indicate that sex is no longer consensual.” so the “consent” doesn’t accidentally get turned off.

Why the memetical change could work[edit]

People usually have their cellphones with them and that is particularly true when going on a date with someone so access will not usually be a problem. Video footage is difficult to fake and thus is a reliable and quick way of recording consent that could be used in court. If someone practices safe sex, then they already have pre-coitus procedures. If a guy were to be asked by a girl if they can record a consent video with them, there is virtually no chance a guy is going to say no because it means that they are going to get laid and they are not going to be charged with rape for it. The other way around, namely a guy asking a girl to record a consent video, is trickier as it can lead to the guy getting slapped in the face for his presumption. Thus the meme “girl ask guy for consent video” may have to be the predominant one. I am still trying to figure out what the appropriate male meme should be in regards to recording consent. As long as a woman records all of their sexual activity with consent videos without exception, then everyone the woman has had sex with can be called as a witness to testify that when sex is consensual, she records consent videos. Thus promiscuity would actually serve as proof in the court of law as opposed to something a defense lawyer might be able to turn into an ad hominem attack; The recording of consent videos when sex occurs increases the statistical probability that rape occurred when a consent video wasn't recorded.

Why it may fail[edit]

Unless you are a celebrity or a prominent organization, it is very difficult to spread memes and get them incorporated by a society and sometimes memes are seen as a passing fad. Even if you are a celebrity, your pull is often times limited to certain groups (Richard Dawkins has no pull with creationists, for example.). This limitation could result in the meme not reaching the critical mass it needs to be considered a part of the culture. The video consents need to be done every time, otherwise a defendant can just argue that they were one of the people that wasn’t recorded which could be quite damaging to a person’s case if the defense can produce witnesses that did have consensual sex with the accuser without consent videos. If one records a consent video and places it into the on position, one consents. If one were to change their mind after recording the video and putting it into the on position, there is virtually no chance that a conviction for rape could occur because the defense would have access to a video revealing consent and an ap providing data that consent was in the on position. Thus women have to be cognizant of who they give their consent to and not expect the court to correct their mistake. The court may reject the evidence for no apparent reason other than the fact that they are lawyers. And finally, the ap hasn’t been developed yet… it is just a thought experiment at this stage.

Before we can explore the issue of "Equal Work For Equal Pay" we must first define the premises of the argument.

Are the premises- P1- All people who do equal work deserve equal pay. P2 - Person A does equal work with Person B. Conclusion - Person A deserves to be paid equally with person B.

If these are our premises, then its going to result in a major transfer of wealth from first-world countries to third-world countries as there are a lot of people in third-world countries and they make a lot less money. The people who make equal pay for equal work arguments don't usually premise their arguments, but this is likely to be a minority viewpoint given that the people making these arguments usually want more money, not less.

Are the premises- P1- All people of country X who do equal work (irrespective of merit) deserve to be paid equally. P2 - Person A does equal work with Person B. Conclusion - Person A deserves to be paid equally with person B.

This is the argument for communism. And, as the Soviet Union found out, it doesn't work out too well. For example, paying bad farmers as much as good farmers because they are farmers doesn't work because hard work and skill isn't rewarded. Ultimately this destroys the economy of the country employing such premises. Many modern socialistic countries such as China or socialists such as Bernie Sanders also take into account the need to reward merit. Thus, unless the person arguing is a die-hard communist, this is not likely the premises that one is using.

Are the premises- P1- All people of country X who do equal work based upon merit deserve to be paid equally. P2 - Person A does equal work based upon merit with Person B. Conclusion - Person A deserves to be paid equally with person B.

This is a premised argument that is consistent with both capitalism and socialistic systems that take merit into account (in Bernie's case, he maintains capitalism while addressing socialistic aims through taxation). It has a catch though. In order to argue person A deserves to be paid as much as person B, you have to show that person A has as much merit as person B. For example, you can't assume that Taylor Swift deserves to be paid as much as the person you hired to sing at your wedding because they are both singers. While it may be possible to prove or disprove the idea that income disparities are due to merit for individual cases, it is far more difficult to use group data to come to the same types of conclusions. Given that this is the premised argument most likely used by those advocating for equal pay for equal work, the subsequent discussion will focus on these premises.

While this can often be done for individual cases, it is far

income gap disparities of a group as large as men and women of an entire country

not nearly as simple when you look at group data such as the income gap between .

Isiah 11:2-3 has been used by biblical scholars to identify what these 7 spirits of GodWikipedia's W.svg were believed to be. Based upon this passage, they were the 'spirit of the Lord', of wisdom, of understanding, of counsel, of might, of knowledge, and of fear of the LORD. Alternative views are that the seven graces of Romans 12:6-8 or the seven angels watching creation in 1 Enoch reflect the seven spirits of God. (The seven angels mentioned in 1 Enoch are Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Sarakiel, Gabriel, and Ramiel).

1 Enoch refers to God as the Lord of Spirits which is likely in reference to these spirits. 1 Enoch also mentions the spirits held by the Elect One.

"And in him dwells the spirit of wisdom, And the spirit which gives insight, And the spirit of understanding and of might, And the spirit of those who have fallen asleep in righteousness." -1 Enoch 49:3

'The Elect One' is one of the titles 1 Enoch uses for a messiah figure.

future pages to work - resurrectio zoroastriaism ook of Eoch commuio. sychretism

Books of Enoch 200 B.C. and A.D. 70

Revelation 6:9-11??? Jude 6,7, 13??? 2 Peter 2:4-11?? 1 Peter 3:18-20???

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked…; then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority. Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. (2 Peter 2:4-11 ESV)

For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. (1 Peter 3:18-20 ESV) ement (Daniel 8:17).[2]

Much of the early Patristic lit. shows acquaintance with 1 Enoch and Barnabas and Tertullian, for example, seem to rate the work almost as highly as Scripture. Gnostic and Apocryphal lit. also make use of 1 Enoch. However, by the 4th cent. a.d. the book had fallen into considerable disfavor in the W and Jerome declared it to be an Apocryphal work. Its use, however, evidently continued for a longer time in the E.

The Apocalypse of Ezra also says that the Son of Man was to come from the Davidic bloodline, a requirement for him to be a messiah. (4 Ezra 12:32)


  1. Unless you're a Pentecostal, 1 Enoch
  2. It also has time precedence and arguably is not spurious.
  3. To see why this is misandranistic, imagine someone white saying to someone black that "that is blacksplaining or a Sunni saying to a Shia "That is shiasplaining. If Sunni's and Shia's just followed feminism's example, peace in the Middle East would finally be a realty! Or not... If one requires someone "oppressed" using it, the what about Palestinians saying "Jewsplaining?" Maybe that was what was missing at the 2000 Camp David Summit? In all seriousness, a term like mansplaining is terrible philosophy as its use almost inevitably results in an ad hominem fallacy.
  4. Unless you happen to have access to a nuclear fall-out shelter which you are close to in which case it is definitely not wrong.
  5. The author would argue that some of the memes promoted by the NRA and their followers are examples of this

Substituting explanation for premise

    1. Avoiding the Question: Wh

Reductio ad absurdumis a technique to expose fallacies, not a fallacy itself (though it can be used fallaciously). Intuition pump is also a philosophical technique.

Other Fallacies that have been mentioned Beside the Point[22], Irrelevant conclusion[22], Questionable premise[22] - These are broad categories of fallacies that don't easily fit into the categorization of fallacies that was used. Others are Self-fulfilling prophecy[22] Retrogressive Causation[25] Oversimplified Cause Fallacy[25] False Effect[25] Statement of Conversion[25] Denying the correlative[25]

Work On[edit]

Site managers -- This page is still in development. The following are rational wiki articles that were originally listed on this page that were cited as needing to be worked on and have yet to be included:

  1. Substituting explanation for premise: Asserting that, because a given explanation for why something occurs is bad, the thing does not occur. - this is either another name for the bad reasons fallacy or a subset of it. I couldn't find any outside sources using this terminology and none were cited on the page itself.
    1. My enemy's enemy: also known as the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The rational wiki article was cited as being needed for improvement. There is a wikipedia article devoted to this topic, though I am not certain people have cited it as a fallacy before. If it is considered to be one, it would be a subset of the fallacy of opposition.
    2. Jonanism: There is an urban dictionary inclusion of it but this appears to be more of a pejorative than a widely recognized fallacy category.
    3. Imprecision fallacy: This appears to be part of a different way of categorizing fallacies that was not used on this page.

      1. Package-Deal Fallacy[25]
      2. Limited Depth[25]
      3. Limited Scope[25]
    1. Question-Begging Analogy (not the same as Begging the Question)[23]

reasonable doubt

Fallacy collections[edit]

There are lots of fallacy collections in the Web. Some of them promote a particular agenda, but most fallacies listed in them are real and present in arguments everyday. Unfortunately, many are deprecated.

Availability Heuristic :

  1. 1.0 1.1 Nephesh
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named h5477
  3. Timaeus by Plato, 360 B.C.E, translated by Benjamin Jowett, MIT's Internet Classics Archive
  4. Plato's Timaeus by Donald Zeyl and Barbara Sattler, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published Oct 25, 200, revised Dec 18, 2017
  5. Aristotle on Causality by Andrea Falcon, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published Jan 11, 2006, revised Mar 11, 2015
  6. The Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, translated by fathers of the English Dominican Province
  7. Must the beginning of the universe have a personal cause?: A critical examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument by Wes Morriston, Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2000
  8. 8.0 8.1 Of the Idea of necessary Connexion Part II by David Hume, from An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, The Harvard Classics, 1909–14
  9. A Treatise of Human Nature, Book I, Part III: Section XIV by David Hume
  10. 10.0 10.1 Causality by F. Daniel Hidalgo amd Jasjeet S. Sekhon, UC Berkeley
  11. The Problem of Induction by Leah Henderson, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Mar 21, 2018
  12. The Geometry of Causality, Space Time by Matthew O’Dowd, PBS Digital Studios, Feb 2, 2017
  13. Causal inference in statistics: An overview by Judea Pearl Statistics Surveys Vol. 3, 2009, 96–146.
  14. 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 Correlation and Causation by David A. Kenny, March 2004
  15. Change, Self‐organization and the Search for Causality in Educational Research and Practice by Matthijs Koopmans, Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education Volume 11, 2014, Number 1, pages 20‐39
  16. 16.0 16.1 Causal Reasoning iSTAR Assessment: Inquiry for Scientific Thinking and Reasoning, filed in Dimensions of Scientific Reasoning on Apr.11, 2011
  18. Reversing cause and effect is no trouble for quantum computers, July 20, 2018, National University of Singapore
  19. Causal Determinism by Carl Hoefer, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, first published Jan 23, 2003, revised Jan 21, 2016
  20. Pilot Wave Theory and Quantum Realism, Space Time by Matthew O’Dowd, PBS Digital Studios, Nov 30, 2016
  21. Is This What Quantum Mechanics Looks Like? by Veritasium, Nov 2, 2016
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 Fallacies, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Bradley Dowden
  23. 23.0 23.1 23.2 Fallacy Files by Gary N. Curtis, accessed August 2018
  24. Kimberly Moekle, Conspiracy Theory handout, Stanford University, Fall 2008
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 25.8 Dr. Robert Bennett, Logically Fallacious, accessed August 2018
  26. Does Rubella Cause Autism: A 2015 Reappraisal? by Jill Hutton, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2016, 10: 25.
  27. The Future — If There Is One — Is Female, by Sally Gearhart
  28. What Is Enlightenment? (Issue 16) Fall/Winter 2002 Susan Bridle interviewed (BC Professor Mary Daly
  29. Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea by Andrea Dworkin 1977
  30. Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture by Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young
  31. Feminists treat men badly. It's bad for feminism. By Cathy Young Washington Post June 30, 2016