PDA

View Full Version : Prof Genova and logic



wrbones
04-03-03, 10:18 PM
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/144030.shtml









Professor De Genova's Moral Clarity
Tom Marsland
Friday, April 4, 2003
The War of Iraqi Liberation has injected a truth serum directly into the arteries of at least some of America’s university professors. At least one has done more than admit his anti-Americanism: He's embraced it, relished it, waxed braggadocios about it.
He was willingly ‘outed’ in this voluntary walk off the plank of the good ship ‘Patriotism.’ Seemingly, he wishes only to touch the hem of Benedict Arnold’s garment.

Professor Nicholas De Genova is such a man and more – he is actually honest! A traitor? Yes – but an honest traitor!

The untenured associate professor at New York's prestigious (not sure why anymore) Columbia University says that "The only true heroes are the ones who find ways to defeat the U.S. military." At a recent Columbia University 'teach-in,' he called for "a million Mogadishus against the U.S. fighting man" and called for the "defeat of America."

In a weird and near ‘twilight zone’ moment, we owe a debt of gratitude to this traitorous purveyor of illogic. He has engaged in a rare moment of perfect moral clarity via a little known and even less-utilized tool in the university's hallowed halls: honesty.

We know exactly what Professor De Genova’s values are, we know exactly what he is not: a patriotic American.

This sets the professor apart from his peers. Most are lying to us, perhaps even to themselves. He is not. When he said he wanted our troops to fail and die, I believed him. I don't believe the others.

The highest level of irony has been achieved here. These same supposed purveyors of the art of higher cognitive applications are given to illogic regarding world events and their attendant causation.

Those who teach the science of ‘logic’ have no ability to apply it in even its simplest form, common sense. In our universities, common sense appears to be the least common of all the senses.

In reality, it is the simplest application of deductive reasoning and, therefore, logic.

Let's look at the typical university professor's anti-war axiom: "I am against the war but for the troops."

Is this possible? Can one be against rain but for moisture? Against the military but for a secure defense?

I just reread an old grad school text addressing the fundamental laws of logic, the rules of inference, and the application of proper deductive reasoning, and I think I can be of assistance here.

Being an educated type myself (please don’t hold that against me), I could go all ‘professorial’ on you and began regurgitating the foundational principles of logic. Principles such as hypothetical and disjunctive syllogisms (rules number seven and eight, from the nine rules of reasoned inference – impressed?).

But to the horror of most educators, I’d rather be real and explain this with that above-referenced rarity, common sense.

Common sense does not allow one to:

Say you support the cruise line even though you want to see the ship sink.

Support women’s equality, but deny women the right to vote.

Advertise your wealth, but overdraft your checking account.

Ask for a handout while claiming you’re not a ‘bum.’

Claim you hate to read, then rattle off your 15 favorite books.

Maintain “There is no God” but then pray to Him daily for your needs.

Claim you were never married while showing your friends your wedding pictures.

Complain that the light is not shining while reading aloud from a brightly illuminated text.

Hate what America stands for whilst enjoying its benefits (sorry, Professor).

Disdain fossil fuels usage and technology while flying first class to the Kyoto Summit.

Complain about right-wing talk radio dominating the media while appearing on left-wing CNN.
And finally, common sense does not allow one to say "I am opposed to the war but I support the troops!" As if to back that up, many protesters are carrying posters saying "Solidarity with Iraq!" A clear violation of logic when it is followed by "Anti-war, but for our troops."

Is it not Iraq they're fighting? If Iraq wins, will our troops not die? Logic 101 violated at all levels ... period.

Now do you see what I mean about Professor De Genova's moral clarity? He hates America and our troops and has told us so. He is a traitor to America, but not to his own conscience.

I really want to say, "Thank you for your moral clarity, Professor, and now please go directly to jail, do not pass go, and do not collect $200." But I suppose this will result in his promotion to a full professorship, in line for head of his department at Columbia, and the granting of everlasting tenure.

God help us.


* * * * * *
Hear Tom Marsland's talk show daily on the nationwide Salem Radio Network's AM 980 KKMS in Minneapolis, Minn., & weekly as U.S. correspondent on New Zealand's Radio Rhema. A former heavyweight wrestler & corporate CEO, Tom writes cultural, political & religious commentary for the Assist News Service, NewsMax.com, Minnesota Christian Chronicle and others.

E-mail Tom at tom@kkms.com.

firstsgtmike
04-03-03, 11:47 PM
Damn!

I was preparing to write something and was in the process of arranging my thoughts, then THIS came up, Prof Geneva & Logic.

Mr. Marshland remembers more terms than I do from Philosophy 101, which included an Introductory Course in Logic, both Boolean and Syllogistic.

In most learned things, I cannot quote, I cannot cite. Rather I absorb, I become, to one degree or another. I leave it to others to explain my meanderings as sounding like, or coming from "x".

Anyway. Consider this! Logic, clear and concise thinking being a requirement for college graduation. Important enough to be 50% of the final grade.

Logic; not limited to a one time freshman course, but a mark to be given one month before senior graduation time. And to be a composit and result of all papers presented and public positions voiced while in college.

It would matter NOT, if an evaluator agreed or disagreed with a paper or position taken. The mark earned would reflect the student's ability for logical and clear and concise thinking.

The hypotheses might not be correct, but the conclusion BETTER support the hypotheses.

ALL whales can fly.
You are a whale.
Therefore, you can fly.

Is a correct logistic syllogism. The conclusion is supported by the hypotheses. Before you can challenge the conclusion, you MUST refute one or both hypotheses.. Can whales fly, are you a whale?

Understand that or not. My point is that a student should NOT be considered a college graduate, regardless of their discipline, UNTIL and UNLESS they can demonstrate an ability for critical and logical thinking.

Mr. Marshland's article made my point with examples I never would have thought of.

I think he would agree with me. Let's make "common sense" a requirement for both high school and college graduation.