Premises, Premises

So, I've had the idea for this post for a while, but haven't been able to put it in words. I had planned writing a long, rambling, boring post, but I realized it could probably be said better shorter.

Also, it helps that SF author, statistician, amateur philosopher and historian, and all around Cool Guy Michael Flynn has done the bulk of the work for me. Recently, he wrote a piece on the "ladder of inference". You should go read it. No, seriously. Go. I'll wait.

All done? To summarize for those too lazy to read, the ladder of inference is basically the process we mentally apply whenever presented with facts. It goes like this:

1. I observe objectively.
2. I select data from what I observer.
3. I add meaning to what I have selected.
4. I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added.
5. I draw conclusions, which prompt feelings.
6. I adopt beliefs about the world.
7. I take action based on my beliefs and feelings.

Now, there is a loop, called the Reflexive Loop from step 6 to step 2: our beliefs influence what data we select from our observations. This is why two people can be presented with the same set of data and draw completely different conclusions about it. Based on their beliefs, developed from previous experiences, people will notice different things, infer different meanings, and make different assumptions from the same things.

For our purposes, I will refer to these beliefs that influence our observations and actions as "premises". These are not, of course, philosophical premises in the sense of "first principles", since they are based on prior experiences. But, for a given situation, they are the things we assume are a given, and not topics for discussion.

Now, the problem is people tend to assume that their experiences are universal, and internalize their premises to such a point that they assume everyone else shares them. So when two people observe the same data, and come to different conclusions, if they've climbed too high, too fast, on the ladder of inference, they'll be completely at a loss to understand how the other person came to another conclusion.

This is why arguing on the internet is, for the most part, completely futile. Every time you see two people going at it in comboxes, each one talking past the other, it's typically because one (or both) have climbed too high on the ladder. Each one assumes his premises to be true, based on experiences he assumes are universal. And since the premises are usually not the things being discussed, the "conversation" continues apace, with neither party actually hearing or addressing the points made by the other.

Every time you come across a pro-life person lamenting how much pro-choice people hate babies, while the pro-choice person bemoans that pro-lifers hate women, it's because of the ladder. When you see a same-sex marriage advocate calling a traditional marriage advocate a homophobe, while the latter insists that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman and why-oh-why can't the homosexuals understand this, it's the ladder. And when you see an atheist call all religion irrational while the theist is calling atheists blind, it's the ladder. None of the parties are acknowledging that the other person may have a different starting point for his beliefs because of his different life experiences.

(Note: I'm not saying that neither person is correct, or that both views are true; I'm just saying that someone's reasons for holding a belief are, in the vast majority of circumstances, rational and well-intentioned, no matter how wrong it might be.)

So it's a particularly treasured moment when someone reveals in plain language, right off the gate, what his premises are. It allows one to see why, exactly, that person holds the beliefs that he holds,

This is all a very, very roundabout way of introducing the topic of a document released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation called "Exclaim!: Young People's Guide to 'Sexual Rights'". An old college buddy of mine linked to it on the blog of his psychotherapy practice as an example of the "philosophy and social conditioning that the youth of today experience in our culture."

I found it fascinating because it puts the premises of the the sexually promiscuous culture right out front, plain to see. For instance:

Other newly-discovered rights: the pleasure of eating irrespective of desires for nourishment; the right to breathe without respiration; and the freedom to jump off cliffs without falling.

Simply put, it is a premise of the culture of death that everyone has a right to sex without babies. From here, it is easy to see how you end up with the right to abortion. If you have a right to actions without consequences, when the consequences occur, they are interfering with your rights. It's also easy to see why they think that pro-lifers are "denying a woman her rights".

This is important, because any pro-life argument that fails to address this mentality is doomed to failure. Any argument that starts with the humanity of the unborn is a futile argument. What a fetus is does not matter to a woman's right to "sexual freedom". If stealing candy from African AIDS orphans was necessary for sexual freedom, that would be justified by this premise.

This explains the cognitive dissonance exhibited in other places in the document. For instance, on page 8, IPPF defines all human rights, as universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, and impose obligations, then goes on to define inalienable:

INALIENABLE: Everyone is entitled to human rights simply for being human [NB: "for being human". Not "person". This undercuts the "the fetus isn't a person" objection]. Human rights cannot be taken away or given up from anyone, irrespective of their age [So... a 10-week gestational human being cannot have its rights taken away?], gender, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, disability, HIV status or health status.

Then, on page 19, while listing human rights, they state:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and to be free from harm."

There are, of course, implications to these two statements. But the ladder of inference can prevent someone from seeing them.