The Saturday Chat thread in Community turned into a discussion of historical accuracy of common perceptions. Zmj posted a link to concentration camps, which then linked to an article on propaganda. How often do you feel that you're the victim of propaganda instead of unbiased reporting in news programs, politics, and advertising? How important is critical thinking to you vs. "bandwagon" thinking?

An interesting word, from Latin congregatio de propaganda fide ‘congregation for propagation of the faith’. All reportage has a bias. All texts have a political agenda. It's just we don't notice it when we agree with the bias, only when we disagree. I've always thought that if you can come away from college with one skill it should be critical thinking.

quote:

I've always thought that if you can come away from college with one skill it should be critical thinking.

Absolutely, Zmj. We talk about critical thinking a lot in nursing, and here is a link to an academic site that is a good review of a lot of that discussion.

It is still very hard to identify, harder to teach, and impossible to accurately measure. Otherwise, it's quite easy!

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
How often do you feel that you're the victim of propaganda instead of unbiased reporting in news programs, politics, and advertising?

Always.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:

How important is critical thinking to you vs. "bandwagon" thinking?

I'm confident everyone on this site would rate high on any critical thinking IQ test that might exist. We can demonstrate that by our daily competence in the work we do.

At the same time we are all likely on some bandwagons right now that we are unaware of and most of us are likely ashamed of bandwagons we were on in the past, but today reject. I certainly fit in that description.

So the problem of the "lie", which is what I think we are talking about with "propaganda", is independent of critical thinking. That is, critical thinking does not help us deal with lies that we cherish. In fact, my claim here is that reason - i.e., critical thinking - only serves to justify the lies we have accepted. Something else protects us from propaganda.

So here's a test and an illustration.

Three years ago, the Bush-Blair Iraq war started. At that time, we heard that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which justified an invasion. I think it is common knowledge now that the Bush-Blair team knew there were no such weapons and were using that argument as propaganda.

With all of our critical thinking skills, with all of our college-trained reasoning abilities, were any of us able to see through the lie at the time or did we go along with the 80% to 95% of the US/British population that believed the propaganda? To put this another way, did we ever believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in spite of UN inspections saying that they no longer existed? How many of us even used reason to further justify that lie to others?

I won't mention my own views at that time. Even if anyone here got it right back then, there are likely other situations where we got it wrong. What I do remember seeing is highly rational people not only accepting the lie, but justifying it with their critical thinking.

If we want to find out what we can use to protect ourselves from propaganda or bandwagon thinking, we should look at the 5-20% of the population who rejected the propaganda when it was unpopular to do so. Not all of them were brilliant, college educated professionals. I wonder if even the majority were.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frank Hubeny,

I suspect that the majority in the UK did not support our Government's decision to invade Iraq. Some of the postings on this board back at that time (from myself amongst others) made our own positions clear enough.

The Iraq war was never justifiable on any grounds except those of US self-interest. The world still has many dictatorships as bad as Saddam's (Zimbabwe's, for example) but the USA has kept well out of them since those countries have nothing it needs (did I hear the word oil?).

Your last paragraph is incendiary, divisive, and inappropriate for the subject-matter of this board.

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:
inappropriate for the subject-matter of this board.

I disagree. I think it's a fine example of how we all produce our own propaganda, whether intentionally or not. It demonstrates perfectly how easy it is to present one's opinions and beliefs as facts especially when you those beliefs are strongly held.
Whether I agree with the paragraph in question or not is irrelevent, I recognise it as propoganda.

quote:

Your last paragraph is incendiary, divisive, and inappropriate for the subject-matter of this board.

I agree. But it is still my opinion.

If you want a political board, I'm sure you can find one. But here, we're trying to keep peace. Work with me, guys.

Sorry, Wordcrafter, if I've opened a can of worms. Delete the thread if you see fit.

Frank's discussion reminded me of Chomsky's "Necessary Illusions." I think that's what he meant. Often what Frank calls lies are considered "popular wisdom," as in the case I cited in the Community discussion concerning Edison. It may not be true, but we're loath to accept what's been said for so long. Quid veritas est? Pilate posed the question, and it still needs answering!

I think if you want to talk about propaganda you have to have examples and the critics should lay off a little. I am teaching a course this fall on how to critically evaluate the news and the actual topic is government fear and its responses in American history. We will talk about vicious suppression of the press immediately after the founding, the McCarthy era, and the present government repression. While the point is to teach critical thinking, this cannot be done without the presence of content to think ABOUT. To that end, the above discussion on Iraq, although I thought most of it was wrong, was perfectly appropriate. People need to chill out.

P.S. The answer to Quid veritas est, unless one is operating in an artificial system of pure logic, such as mathematics, is asymptotic and based on consensus. There is no veritas otherwise. If you think of the actual structure of the universe as a straight line on a graph, the truth as discovered by the arts and sciences is a curve which is approached but never reached. At any point the consensus of the best minds may be represented as an asymptotic point getting nearer that line - but getting there ain't given to us mortals. That's for God, and nobody else (and will the atheist lobby please not waste its breath on me).

This is what makes propaganda so possible and so prevalent. If we had any clear truth, we could scoot easily around it. The propagandists are very well aware of what I said above, and very well aware that we don't want to face up to it. This gives them room to dodge and shift with words.

quote:

Originally posted by Beth:
The Iraq war was never justifiable on any grounds except those of US self-interest. The world still has many dictatorships as bad as Saddam's (Zimbabwe's, for example) but the USA has kept well out of them...

This could, of course, equally well be turned into an argument that we ought to be in every one of those countries, rather than an argument that we ought not be in Iraq. There is a book out which makes that argument, in fact: that we could literally clean up the world. Whether physically possible or not, the argument is logically coherent.

quote:

This could, of course, equally well be turned into an argument that we ought to be in every one of those countries, rather than an argument that we ought not be in Iraq. There is a book out which makes that argument, in fact: that we could literally clean up the world. Whether physically possible or not, the argument is logically coherent.

I very much doubt that the USA can even sustain its present imperial ambitions, let alone take on any more. The USA's present debt is the biggest the world has ever seen and is growing by millions every DAY - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/. Much of this debt is caused by the cost of the wars it is involved in and it's presently being paid for by printing paper money.

History tells us that this can't go on for ever and the signs of the collapse of the dollar are there for all to see.

I just hope it doesn't happen for a little while since the collapse of the US economy will drag down most of the rest of the world with it, as happened in 1929.

All empires eventually collapse and the USA's will probably go down in history as having been the most rapidly growing and shortest ever. Sadly, I fear its collapse will not be a gentle as the collapse of the world's largest - the British - although only time will tell us.

"I very much doubt that the USA can even sustain its present imperial ambitions, let alone take on any more. The USA's present debt is the biggest the world has ever seen and is growing by millions every DAY..."

Have you ever tried calculating the debt-to-equity or income ratio for the USA the way you would for a private person buying a house? I suggest you try it. You will be shocked at what you find out, I promise, and much less pessimistic. If the dollar collapses, it will be due to panic and propaganda, not to anything real about money.

Also "the biggest the world has ever seen" is hardly a surprise since it is the biggest economy the world has ever seen. It would be a surprise if it were NOT the biggest the world had ever seen. That's propaganda of just the kind I mean. The appropriate response is "So what?"

In 2001 US debt held by the public was 33% of Gross Domestic Product, the lowest since 1982. Since then it has risen a bit (unsurprising, in view of the war) but only to 37.4%. Contrast an average of 46.1% during the 1990s.

Some math points:

• Debt must be measured against the size of the economy: if you're well off, you can afford more debt.
• Much of the US government debt is held (owned) by US government agencies, so it in effect is just an inter-agency balance; no biggie. This "no-biggie" part has been rising pretty rapidly. But the important part, debt to the public, is appreciably less than the total debt.

Data here, in PDF format, from the official 2007 budget.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

quote:

Also "the biggest the world has ever seen" is hardly a surprise since it is the biggest economy the world has ever seen.

Sorry. That doesn't wash. The USA was the world's biggest creditor just a decade ago, under Clinton. The massive debt you now see has been created just since then. And, on corrected figures, I am not even sure that the USA's economy is the biggest the world has ever seen. I rather suspect that was the British economy during the time of Empire - though I've not researched it.

And don't be complacent about the US economy, either. Right now it's the world's biggest, but only last week China overtook the UK to become number 4 in the world - and what makes you believe it won't overtake the USA? Take a look at the bottom of just about any goods you buy in your local store - you won't see "Made in the USA" on many of them. The USA is spending money it's not truly making and that can't go on for ever.

You can work out the debt to equity ratio if you want - the debt is presently $8,416,705,826,228 - that's roughly $28,142 per man, woman and child in the USA. I don't know what the USA's realisable equity is, but I doubt the ratio is as good as you believe. I am sure that there's not $8,416,705,826,228 worth of gold in Fort Knox.

Every empire the world has even seen has eventually failed; why should the USA be any different?

Richard: Every empire the world has even seen has eventually failed; why should the USA be any different?
Yeah, but you're predicting imminent demise. "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." - Mark Twain

Richard: You can work out the debt to equity ratio if you want.
I did (see above). If you had, you'd have seen that those figures don't support your position.

quote:

Much of the US government debt is held (owned) by US government agencies, so it in effect is just an inter-agency balance; no biggie. This "no-biggie" part has been rising pretty rapidly. But the important part, debt to the public is appreciably less than the total debt.

But the debt to the Asian economies, presently being settled in US dollars, is massive. And dollars have no real value - the USA can, and is, printing them by the million at a cost of fraction of a cent each. If the Chinese decided they wanted payment in gold (which, of course the dollar bill is supposed to promise) there isn't enough gold in Fort Knox. I doubt they will at present since a run on the dollar will cause its value to plummet and then their massive dollar holdings will be worth less than the goods they were exchanged for.

Hyperinflation is still going on in countries that could, and should, be wealthy and stable - Zimbabwe is just one example of a fine economy destroyed by the actions of one stupid man. Don't think it can't happen to any other country - including the USA.

quote:

Yeah, but you're predicting imminent demise.

I wish I were clever enough to make such a prediction. I really, really hope that the USA's economy will last for a few more years yet - but when I look at the growth of China's and India's economies, and the relative stagnation of the UK's and the USA's I wonder and worry.

You still haven't answered the underlying point: the debt you decry as "massive" is, in fact, a rather low percentage of GDP when you compare it against the past two decades and adjust for intra-US-govt debt.

And as for your point about "relative stagnation": the US economy is growing at a goodly clip. It is hardly surprising that those who start from a much lower per-capita base should have a higher percentage growth.

I don't know where that puts the USA in the world as I haven't found the complete stats. but at 37% of GDP that is worse than Libya which is 34% and far worse than most European countries. Certainly its current account balance is 20 times as bad as the next country in this dubious list (Australia)

The US economy is presently growing at 4.4& - 88th in the world. China is over double that at 9.1%.

Obviously it's difficult to compare statistics since they are rarely comparing like with like. However, a country with the resources of the USA shouldn't be running such a massive and ultimately pointless debt.

Richard: such a massive ... debt.
<sigh> Still calling it "massive", when it's far less (as percent of GDP) than we ran in the previous decade? Not to mention the far-higher percentages when we were helping you with WWII and helping Europe with the Marshall Plan.

I'm not going to change the subject to comparative growth rates, or to comparisons with Libya. One thing at a time. I'm sure we could bandy statistics there too.

---

P.S. Here are pages ranking counties by

• GDP growth rate (Azerbaijan and Angola head the list)
• public debt as % of GDP (US=#34; Japan, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France are all higher)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

So regarding this debt issue, what types of propaganda have been used to pertetuate either Shufitz' position or Richard's?

Earlier, Shufitz posted, "Your last paragraph is divisive, incindiary, and inappropriate for the subject matter at hand." I thought he was being tongue-in-cheek, since labelling and name calling are two typical propaganda tools. I think he meant it, now, however. Surely, statistics can be gerrymandered for propagandistic purposes. What evidence is there for accuracy vs. propaganda in the two sides represented here?

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
Every empire the world has even seen has eventually failed; why should the USA be any different?

Well, how's that for a nice cheery bit of propaganda with which to start one's day, or end it? If people had not thought in that manner, 1929 would never have happened. Good grief: do you get up in the morning and think "Every human has to die someday, perhaps my day will be today"?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
So regarding this debt issue, what types of propaganda have been used to pertetuate either Shufitz' position or Richard's?[QUOTE]

Each of them is doing a very nice job of providing examples of propaganda for his own cause; we need look no further.

grrrrrrrrrrrr

Let's drop it, shall we?

I would disagree that this is a discussion on propaganda. It is a political discussion, period. Unfortunately when that happens, critical thinking goes out the window, and we just hear what we want to hear. I don't see the point in it.

I agree that there's little point in pursuing the topic since it's not really word-related. However, let me say that I always try to avoid sources that will almost certainly be biased (which means most of the media) and try always to use the original research sources.

Most of the information on the US debt and related items came from the CIA World Factbook, which I would think is probably reasonably unbiased.

Incidentally, during my research I was amazed to learn that the world's biggest exporter of alcoholic beverages - is France! At $9,198,970 thousand it is around 3 times as great as the next largest, Italy. The USA with $1,357,090 thousand is 8th., just above little Ireland (that's the Guinness, of course). Unfortunately the UK's figures are "not available". SOURCE: International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO

That is more than enough! This topic is now closed.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: arnie,