First Blog

  Understanding the Murdaugh verdict. This is not half-baked psychology, but rather a rather new form of philosophy.  Guilty as charged came down the verdict – and in record time for a six-week trial. How did they do it?   You would think with such a lengthy trial it might take at minimum several days simply to review testimony, if only to confirm some agreement on the testimony presented. You might say they made an emotional response to their feelings. You could say having listened to all that testimony for weeks, their opinion about guilt or innocence evolved over time. You could even think the evidence was overwhelmingly complex. Thus, they really didn’t understand what they heard. In fact, all are probably correct. Yet, there seemed to be no analytical examination or even review of the facts of the case, being the verdict came so quickly. So what did they do? What they did is what philosophers have been studying for several decades. They used epistemic logic. That is, the jur

What is the meaning of “no amount of evidence will ever persuade a fool”? This statement has a purpose for those unconvinced or persuaded by evidence. You give the most perfect data or perfect reasoning about a topic and the recipient remains unconvinced. The unwritten implication is that he/she then must be a fool. Therefore, the statement is used to establish this: “If you accept no evidence, you must be a fool.” The inability by others (i.e. you, me, et al.) to persuade even very intelligent people has been rampant over all of time, in science, politics, philosophy, religion, even in war. The nifty little aphorism in this question allows us to indirectly call them fools. Second hand insults, as it were. Pretty neat! For example, Democrats think of Republicans as fools because they are unpersuaded by (their) evidence.  And vice-versa. In times past, Lutherans thought of Catholics in the same way – using the word “heretic.” And vice-versa. New science is often promot

MODERN POLITICS  Modern politics is life imitating fiction, this Tale of Two Parties , with each party cheering wildly as an opponent is guillotined, and with each having battalions of Madams DeFarge knitting furiously the names of the victims and accused.    To be a victim, one only needs to accuse, evidence not being required. To be accused, a committed crime is not the factor; it is whose side you’re perceived to be on.   To be convicted does not imply guilt has been proved, only believed.   Our Madams and Messieurs have their whole beings consumed by hate and they “will not rest until their bloodthirsty desires are satisfied.”*  Thank you Charles Dickens for predicting the future, which has now come to pass. *From a review by Daisy Bowie-Sell of the Dickens classic, Tale of Two Cities . ---------------------- GOODNESS It is important to support good people even if, only if, or while they have value to you and what you believe as good .  A good boss has

The wise Captain of life always sails with a trusted crew of six, What, Why, When, and How, Where, Who.*    The ship has a sturdy mast constructed of proof, sails of logic, with a rigging woven of axioms, evidence, and findings.    His mates are Skepticus and Optimus to steady the travel, while deep in the hold kept chained are the Negatives, who multiply  prodigiously  especially in darkness. The four-ever cousins are rejected. You know them well: Whatever, Whomever, Wherever, Whenever.  They embody sailing with equivocation and belong in the hold with the Negatives . Credit the idea here to Rudyard Kipling, The Elephant's Child.