Constitution

-By Dan Scott

Have you ever listened to an argument made plausible by the clever rhetoric of a person skilled in public speaking? How about attending one of those time share sales meetings where you know something is not quite right but you just can’t put your finger on it? In the end, you reject the sales pitch not because of their failure to be persuasive or factual but because deep down inside you know intuitively that somehow what they are pitching can’t possibly be correct and more importantly will separate you from your money. Intuition, which many call the sniff test is an important part of a healthy self- defense mechanism that protects many of us from being conned by fast-talking hucksters even though we can’t articulate exactly what our objection is. We don’t know where the faulty logic begins but we sure know what a faulty conclusion looks like by life experience or effect.

Most confidence men (women) base their persuasive arguments on a plausible false assumption that they get their mark to buy into by condoning the concept. When I speak of condoning, I speak of the failure to assert an objection whereby we demand proof of the assumption being presented to us. The failure to object in essence implies your acceptance of the assertion as fact without proof or truth. A clever lawyer can insert many an unsubstantiated fact via an unchallenged assertion without the need of proof. Much like the false proof in geometry, the failure to question the assumptions whether spoken or unspoken is the basis of many a false conclusion. Using the logic of geometry or even math we can using flawless logic reach the false conclusion by using a false assumption as a starting point. I call this the process of condoning the assumption.
Continue reading “

Cause and Effect”