To Swear...

... is to admit defeat.

I have an enormous vocabulary, and I am something of a genius in logic.  Sometimes people pick arguments with me.  The first time they have to swear at me to make their point, I am done, because to swear is to admit defeat.  Typically, they don't understand this, so I am going to elaborate.

First, before I explain, I want to point out that the first time a person swears in an argument, they almost always open a hole in their own position.  While I consider swearing itself an admission of defeat, the holes typically opened are almost always easier to attack than the actual swearing.  With my rather large vocabulary, I never need to resort to swearing, even to insult someone in the most vile way possible (though, I stick to attacking their argument, the flaws in the argument, and the personal problems that lead to those flaws, as it is a logical fallacy to attack a person's character in ways that are totally unrelated to the argument).  It is typically unnecessary to point out the problem with swearing itself.

Now, why is swearing an admission of defeat?  Depending on the actual target of the swearing, it is one of a number of logical fallacies.  The most common one is ad hominem.  This is the logical fallacy of making a personal attack against the character of your opponent.  It is a logical fallacy, because the character of your opponent has no bearing on the validity and correctness of the argument.  When a person says "mother [extremely foul swear word that I am not going to repeat]," they are accusing their opponent of a particularly vile form of incest.  Whether this accusation is true or not, it has no bearing on the validity of the argument.  Almost as often, the swearing is directed at the argument itself.  Unless the swear word (or words) is being used literally (and makes sense in that context), the attack makes no logical sense.  This logical fallacy is called a non sequitur, which translates to "it does not follow."  For instance, "That argument is [crap spelled with an 'sh']," means nothing, and as evidence against an argument, it is a non sequitur (in fact, this could also be considered circular reasoning, "Your argument is wrong, because it is crap, because it is wrong..." which is another logical fallacy).  In nearly any other case, swearing amounts to the person making a non-sense statement because he or she cannot think of any more counter arguments that are logically valid (which also counts as a non sequitur).  In all three cases, the opponent has been reduced to either using faulty logic or giving up the argument altogether in favor of changing the subject.  These are all admissions of defeat.

The worst thing about swearing is that it is actually not that offensive.  When used in a non-literal sense or out of context, swearing is meaningless.  One religious leader once said something to the effect of, "Swearing is the sign of a weak mind trying to make a strong statement."  Swearing is most often used as an "intensifier."  An intensifier is a word or phrase used to emphasize another statement.  Swearing used as an intensifier looses all of its meaning.  It is only offensive because it is a misuse of language.  Saying a word that literally means feces to intensify a statement deliberately ignores the actual meaning of the word.  This confuses communication, which devalues it.

Now, the reason for the statement about swearing being the sign of a weak mind is quite straight forward: There is always a better way.  In verbal conversation, speaking with more emphasis is often a completely sufficient way of intensifying a statement.  In written language, italics or bold type is a good solution, and when these are not available, the judicious use of all caps can be effective (using all caps liberally makes them loose their effect, much like the excessive use of swearing).  When these are not sufficient though, a good vocabulary can beat pretty much anything.  A good vocabulary can be used to construct statements far more insulting and vile than any amount of swearing.  Likewise, a good vocabulary can get across any statement at any intensity, without a single swear word.  Even better, responding to swearing with a far more vile insult without using a single swear word is far more infuriating than just swearing back.  Let me be clear, I am not advocating being rude, insulting, or otherwise uncivil.  If you must though, do it right. 

The worst (or maybe best...) insult is not the one that your opponent immediately counters.  The worst insult is the one that your opponent does not realize was insulting until a week later (or even better, until he gets home and looks up one or more of the words you used).  There is nothing more petty than a comeback that is a week late, and there is nothing more humiliating than being the person who only realizes they have been insulted once it is far too late to ever respond.  Even one swear word can ruin the perfect insult.

The only thing better than the week-out insult is the insult that is recognized immediately, but which there is still no comeback for that is not petty.  If you want to gain some skill in this watch (or better, read) Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility (actually, any Jane Austin), and Taming of the Shrew (I am sure Shakespeare has other good stuff as well) multiple times (you will not catch all of the veiled insults the first five or so times).  The Mikado, by Gilbert and Sullivan, has some good stuff as well, but make sure to get the Stratford Festival version (none of the others do it justice).  The British upper class evidently raised this to an art form.

Questionable Science?

First I have to tell you that I am a scientist of sorts. I have always been interested in physics, electronics, genetics, and many other scientific subjects. I enjoy reading about new discoveries and various theories. I have even come up with a few of my own theories. So do not take this article as an anti-science pro-religion article. The intent of this article is to show that science and religion are two distinctly separate disciplines.

First, let's define a few words. We will start with the word 'fact'. I define a fact as something which has been shown to be true in at least one instance and has never been shown to be false. This definition makes sense, especially in its use within the realm of science. Usually in science, for something to be recognized as a fact, it must be show to be true by multiple independent researchers, but in many cases facts are accepted after one researcher shows it to be true, then other independent research is conducted to verify the original research. Note, however, that on occasion a 'fact' is discovered to be false in at least one instance and thus ceases to be a fact (look into what areas of the tongue taste what flavors for an example).

The second word is 'truth'. This is a religious word. Truth is something that is absolutely and irrevocably true. Truth transcends science and facts. The problem with truth is that it cannot be empirically proven. A person may know that something is absolutely true, but cannot convince others because they have no proof, or even no evidence, of what they claim to be true. Truth is absolute, but cannot be proven by any means available to man or science.

These words are exclusive to their specific disciplines. Truth has no place in science and facts have no place in religion. The reason is that religion and science have no overlapping ground. This does not mean that only one of the two can be valid. Rather it means that neither can infringe upon the realm of the other. In other words, science is not sufficiently equipped to argue with religion and religion is not equipped to argue with science. This is why arguments between the two most often end in stalemates. The two cover entirely different realms. Neither realm is suitable for the other to exist within.

Let's define science. Science consists of observations and predictions. Experiments can be devised and executed to observe reactions under controlled conditions, but it is still only observation. Science collects data, compiles and organizes it, and then looks for patterns. That is where science ends. Science may use the discovered patterns to make predictions, but may not interpret the data. This means that it is acceptable for a scientist to say that it is likely that a certain effect is going to happen given certain circumstances, but it is not acceptable for the scientist to claim that he absolutely knows that a certain effect will happen. Absolute knowledge does not belong to the realm of science. If a scientist makes such a claim, he is preaching his faith and belief that the effect will happen, not making a prediction based on observation. It has been shown that an observation may be taken any number of times with the same results, but then the next observation may yield results entirely at odds with all of the previous observations. Quantum physics actually predicts this. Science itself predicts that even an infinite number of observations may not yield every possible result.

Religion is nearly opposite to science in definition. Religion often is not based on any known observations. Empirical studies cannot prove religious truths. Even the appearance of deity can easily be attributed to hallucination or other forms of illusion. It is known that the senses can be fooled into seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching things that are not real and do not actually exist. On the other hand a person may claim that they have had a feeling that has given them absolute knowledge of truth, and science can do nothing to prove or disprove that claim or that truth. Many who have claimed to be scientists have tried to prove or disprove various religious claims and all have failed, except in the few cases where the claims have infringed upon the realm of science. Still, while no effort of science has ever been able to disprove religion, neither have any effort of science been able to verify religion.

This war between religion and science is not even real. Neither can cross the boundaries of the other. For a scientist to fight against religious principles he must create his own religious ideals that oppose those principles he is fighting against. Likewise, for a religious person to fight against a theory of science, he must create his own scientific theories that oppose those theories he wishes to fight against. This does not mean that religions cannot have scientific theories within them, but those religions must understand that the theories are subject to the rules of science, if they are to be considered scientific theories. Otherwise they are not theories, but rather religious beliefs.

Unlike science, religion is subject to interpretation. To interpret scientific data is to create a religious belief or principle based upon that data (this is where pagan nature worship originated). Science may not go beyond prediction and still be considered science. Religion on the other hand cannot make predictions. For religion to make predictions is to invite ruin. When religion crosses the boundaries into the realm of science, it must play by the rules of science. This means that if a religion makes a prediction, science may make a direct attack on that religion by disproving the prediction. Of course, if a scientist crosses the boundaries into religion, that scientist puts every theory and claim he has ever made in question. This does not mean that a single person may not make religious claims and scientific theories, but that person must be sure not to make a scientific theory based on belief, nor a religious claim that infringes on science; he must make sure his claims fall distinctly into the correct category. The two are not enemies, but they do not tolerate territorial disputes.

That said, there is one case where science and religion can get along. This is the case where the interpretations of religion and the predictions of science run parallel. For this to happen two things must be true. First, all of the claims made by the religion must be true, ie. they must be the correct interpretation. Second, science must recognize that everything may not be as it seems. No amount of evidence will reveal the absolute truth. Sometimes the evidence may actually be entirely at odds with the truth. If science refuses to admit this, it has failed. Equally, if religion refuses to admit that their interpretation may not be entirely accurate, it too has failed. Religion and science can only play together on the narrow strip of ground where they meet. Somewhere that ground does exist, but as it has not yet been found and indeed may never be found, science and religion should be treated as two distinctly separate, but valid realms of understanding. A scientist who claims that science makes religion invalid is a false prophet and a preacher who claims that religion supercedes science is a purgored scientist. Science cannot offer truth and religion cannot offer facts. Those on both sides need to realize this and get on with their lives. There are much more useful things they could be doing with their lives than participating in a war that cannot be won.

Lord Rybec