11/6/08 - The Senses

Stated bluntly, evidence based upon sensory stimuli is always suspect. The human nervous system is a fickle thing that has many sorting mechanisms and triggers (such as, for instance, the body's natural sorting mechanism for pain-- if one were to fall and break their leg, as excruciating as the pain may, it would immediately disappear if one were then, say, shot in the pelvis), and almost all recorded stimuli must first go through a number of processes before being recorded in the brain. Each of these processes is completely at the mercy of factors such as health, state of mind, internal and external temperature, et cetera, so far as the way they sort information gathered by the senses. The ancients were quite correct in being skeptical about sensory evidence.

Direct data, such the increase or decrease of gross domestic product in correlation with the implementation of various systems of taxation, is an example of data that is truly empirical, in that they stretch over a wide period of time and are subject to few, if any, subjective influences. Given that there is a vary limited scope of networks of interpretation through which this data must pass, one can take arguments using such data (so long as the arguments themselves are as objective as possible) as arguments founded on adequate criteria.

The majority of arguments I make-- we'll stick with arguments for Libertarianism as the aura of political discourse has only slight abated... and I'm still bitter-- are founded upon historical and philosophical criteria. The former is subjective by nature but, by and large when examined for trends of time, while the other has about as much tangibility as a dirty limerick. In the case of historical premises, this data (especially data pertaining to effects upon citizenry and economic production as the result of implemented socio political agendas) is, for the most part, consistent enough to be regarded as relevant. Philosophical arguments, however, are in their very nature utterly subject, meaning the use of philosophy as ARGUMENT are as futile as attempting to nail a cloud to a tree. Their strength, however, comes in their ability to appeal to logos, ethos, and pathos all at once, and to evoke the emotional side of a reader or listener with arguments that are ostensibly based upon logic.