How to Aristotle

How to use the simplistic tools of Aristotelean logic to do real thinking.

There are two ways of spelling Aristotelean. The other is Aristotelian. I chose “lean” because I think of Aristotelean logic as being “lean”. Getting to the meat and leaving all the fat behind. If you cut too lean you cut right to the bone and leave all the meat behind as well.

To do this I am going to tackle a subject where there is no good answer — Only questions that are not even interesting enough to explore on their own — But will be explored for other reasons.

Ready?

The medium who claims to be able to read auras.

How do we go about a Mapological examination of the subject?

The best way is to start out with  — Can you guess? Aristotelelean questions separating what can be true from what can be explored.

Either Madam Aura Reader is telling the truth or she is lying.

If she is lying then she is a fake and nothing more is to be explored here.

So let us say she is telling the truth: Then: The Question, using A <-^- > P becomes “What is she telling the truth about?”

Either Madam Aura Reader sees Auras or she does not.

Just because you and I do not see Auras does not mean Auras in some form are not there.

Just because she sees them does not mean they are there.

She could just as easily be smelling something about people and seeing Auras.

So, giving her all the benefit of the doubt here, we are going to say she perceives something she experiences as Auras.

The next question is, “Are her pronouncements of the meanings of these things correct?” Are they testable? Are they con man jargon?

Now let us look at P -^-> FAR ( please note that time and triggers are not important here and are not included in the argument)

In the ^ we need to include influences, such as ridicule, which would cause her to keep quiet about her vision — And inducements such as monetary gain from people who will pay her money to tell them things that she concludes.

Because of the criticism many people who could see Auras (If anyone can) would never mention their “gift”.

Because there is a lucrative market for people who claim to be able to see Auras there will be charlatans who will brave the criticism for the cash.

A Map Thinker will be aware of all this and more.

A Map Thinker will reserve judgment about the possibility of someone reading Auras until such time as the skill can be proved or disproved scientifically. Because of the physical and psychological quirks of <-^-> this is unlikely.

A Map Thinker, even were Madam Aura Reader to be proven to have the skill, would still keep their money in their pocket until the usefulness of her pronouncements were also scientifically proven. This is an even less likely event than proving a specific individual has the skill to begin with.

Thus you can use Aristotlean Logic to lead you to reasonable conclusions by pointing out dead ends in thought.

To some people this reasonable line of thinking is much less emotionally satisfying than, “If you can’t prove it, it isn’t true.” School of thought.

So be it. To each his own. There is room in the world for people who believe my way of thinking is trash. So long as they don’t want to come over to my house for sunday Bar B Que and try to convert me.

© 2013 All Rights Reserved