ORLY-EP0112A - The End of the World, Again
Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio
ORLY-EP0112A - The End of the World, Again
ORLY-EP0112A - The End of the World, Again
Welcome to ORLYRADIO #112A for Friday JUNE 3rd, 2016 - where we dismantle the current events for your edutainment through mostly rational conversations that make you go ‘Oh Really’! I’m your host Andy Cowen, with my usual suspects, Fred Sims, & Daniel Atherton.
Audience Feedback From Previous Shows:
We make mistakes. Please, if you find one, pause the podcast, and send us a note. orlyradiopodcast@gmail.com or phone it in 470-222-6759
Potpourri: Guests/Rants/Etc:
It is once again, the end of days. http://www.indiatimes.com/news/weird/scholars-release-the-latest-date-for-apocalypse-june-3-4-2016_-255927.html
This Week in History:
Sources: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-president-woodrow-wilson-signs-national-defense-act
http://www.ydr.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/06/03/time-reinterpret-2nd-amendment-column/85345044/
I ran across an op ed piece for a small online paper, the York Daily Review, today during my internetting. The opinion presented in this piece was that of Lawrence Goldman of the York Township. He is of the opinion that it is time to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. I’m not going to get into a 2nd Amendment conversation here because that can lend itself to an entire show. I just found it interesting that today, June 3rd 2016, I happened to read this article. Interesting because it ties into an argument conservatives and the NRA love to spout regarding “they’ll take your guns”, more so interesting because today’s history shows exactly how something like taking “your” guns would look. Without getting into a giant conversation regarding the 2nd Amendment, I think it is important to at least gloss over the main point of the always controversial amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Still not trying to engage any real 2nd Amendment conversation I believe this logically lends itself to individuals with training and for the purposes of militia or military use should have guns. Dodging the bullet that is dissecting that conversation any further I will bring about today’s bit of history. June 3rd, 1916 and the signing of the National Defense Act by then president Woodrow Wilson. The National Defense Act’s main purpose was to expand the size and the scope of the National Guard, which was the network of states’ militias that had been developing steadily since colonial times—and guaranteed its status as the nation’s permanent reserve force. For anyone who missed the significance of that statement, the President of the United States essentially conscripted state run and regulated militias and turned them into a federally regulated feeder unit for the armed forces. The National Defense Act also set qualifications for National Guard officers, allowing them to attend Army schools; all National Guard units would now be organized according to the standards of regular Army units. For the first time, National Guardsmen would receive payment from the federal government not only for their annual training—which was increased from 5 to 15 days—but also for their drills, which were also increased, from 24 per year to 48. Finally, the National Defense Act formally established the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) to train and prepare high school and college students for Army service. And while I will concede that this act is not an example of taking the guns out of the hands of the people, this is the type of step a government intent on “taking your guns” would implement. And while I’ve got you thinking about the novelty of an idea like our government disarming the people I think it is time for a Logical Fallacy...
-BREAK- Logical Fallacy
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-novelty/
Appeal to Novelty
Explanation
An appeal to novelty is the opposite of an appeal to antiquity. Appeals to novelty assume that the newness of an idea is evidence of its truth. They are thus related to the bandwagon fallacy.
That an idea is new certainly doesn’t entail that it is true. Many recent ideas have no merit whatsoever, as history has shown; every idea, including those that we now reject as absurd beyond belief, were new at one time. Some ideas that are new now will surely go the same way.
Examples
(1) String theory is the most recent development in physics.
Therefore:
(2) String theory is true.
(1) Religion is old-fashioned; atheism is a much more recent development.
Therefore:
(2) Atheism is true.
Each of these arguments commits the appeal to novelty fallacy. The former takes the newness of string theory to be evidence that string theory is true; the latter takes the newness of atheism to be evidence that atheism is true. Merely being a new idea, of course, is no guarantee of truth. The newness of string theory and atheism alone, then, should not be taken to be evidence of the truth of these two positions.