Fine Art of False Premises

Using false premises allows one to create a seemingly logical argument that is false. An easy way to build on false premises is to base one’s argument on opinions, rather than facts. For example, sometime last week I saw several things to the effect that ACC had caused hurricane Harvey. The first time I heard that, I just laughed, but with several repeats I started to be concerned. Apparently, some people have forgotten that hurricanes existed even back in the Little Ice Age; they start without climate change being needed, but that has escaped the notice of some people. But the creators of Anthropogenic Climate Change have claimed that it will make bigger and better storms. And it is easy to say that some storm is the biggest ever, when hurricanes have only been measured thoroughly for a few decades. Starting from the premise that Anthropogenic Climate Change will make hurricanes bigger and stronger and more common it is easy get to ACC caused Hurricane Harvey, but it doesn't make it true. Just as to the man with only a hammer everything is a nail, to the believers in ACC everything is caused by ACC. But those who know climatology know that the atmosphere is chaotic, so it is extremely difficult to predict what a given input will do.

In politics
But false premises are even more common in some other fields. For example, if it weren't for false premises Trump wouldn't have much to say. His presidency and the campaign leading to it have been based on the premise that as president Trump could act however he wished without regard for the law. Apparently, he started his presidential campaign to get some business in Russia. Trump was sure that he would lose, so he didn't even think about policy or futures cabinet officers, etc. Well, his basic assumption that he would lose was wrong, as results he has not done the Russian deal, whatever that was, he has been called upon to run the government, which he is not capable of doing.

Pseudo-science
Another recent example I saw was in an article about the loss of land in the outer delta of the Mississippi River. The article claimed that it was being caused by sea level rising due to ACC, but those islands have been disappearing since the mouth of the Mississippi River was channelized. The Army Corps of Engineers did the work, and it started even before the Civil War, and the channelization was completed in the 1920's. The result was that silt that had spread around the mouth and added to the islands in that area was sent straight out to sea, where it turns the Gulf brown for about a hundred miles. It used to be that when the river flooded the surrounding areas would pick up a layer of silt, but with the river inside levees the silt can't get out there and raise the land. While New Orleans was built on low land, most of it was above water level. If the writer if that article had bothered to do a little research, then it would have been clear that rising sea level was not an issue to those islands, just as parts of the city of New Orleans haven't become below sea level due to that rise. The land was reclaimed from underwater areas; although the rise of the river's level has led to them being even farther below sea level.

Alternate History
There are more false premises in what the people who are taking down monuments to Confederate heroes are claiming. One falsehood upon which their actions are based is that the Second War for Independence was started to preserve slavery. It started over taxes and tariffs. The South's main export was to be taxed higher, and in addition, there was a clash of cultures. The South was mostly agrarian made up of mostly small farmers, while the North was becoming progressively more industrialized and urban. Workers in the different regions were treated similarly, but in the South some of the workers were property of the plantation owners, while in the North the factory owners did not own the workers, so they could treat them worse. Flogging workers was common, except in transportation on board ships (flogging sailors had been outlawed a few years earlier as a result of the uproar from Two Years Before the Mast by Richard Henry Dana), but it was done, and it was an easy way to lose workers, if the workers could afford to move, which they seldom could do. Factory workers in some places were not even allowed to take breaks for calls of nature, while field hands could move freely and care for themselves, as long as they did the work.

And more
If you found this at all interesting, then read my next post, which is more about using false premises and the advantages to be gained from them.