Mad Men Meets Forrest Gump

And now for something different....I haven't done a post in over a year, yes I know.  My life took a drastic turn in 2014 as I've described in one of my videos and to many I know through Facebook:  someone close to me for many years, my significant other, former husband and one whom I reluctantly accepted as a life mate, suddenly and unexpectedly, literally dropped dead  from a massive heart attack.  But that's not what this post is about.

 

Late last year I decided to watch the series Mad Men for the very first time....I was quite late to the game, as Mad Men has been around since 2007 and I was only familiar with Jon Hamm.

Well, I got so hooked that I spent the last two weeks of December into the New Year watching every episode available, and watching it a second time during AMC's Mad Men marathon prior to the concluding show.

I've read some of the articles about the last show; and now I'd like to give my own review.

On Mad Men

Mad Men deftly combined fantasy and reality:  in the story, the fantasy advertising firm Sterling Cooper was eventually absorbed by real life advertising firm McCann Erickson.   The fantasy advertising firm Sterling Cooper had real clients like Heinz and Jaguar, and fantasy clients like Secor Laxatives and Topaz hosiery.

So the reality against the backdrop of the tumultuous sixties were potent memories for me.  Firestone, the first major company I worked for in the early seventies as a secretary, had offices set up much like those at Sterling Cooper, with the executives' offices (at the time, occupied solely by men) around the side, and the secretaries sitting in the middle.  But the fantasy was no executive I knew of had a liquor bar in his office, and didn't drink during work.  The women really didn't dress so impeccably.   And hardly anyone smoked--or it wasn't so obvious.

Firestone was mentioned once in Mad Men as a potential client, as back then it was a much larger company, a major industry.  I remember when a manager scoffed about  the growth prospects of an upstart Japanese Tire manufacturer/competitor named Bridgestone.    Bridgestone, who would eventually buy out Firestone.

But it wasn't Firestone that held my interest, it was the auto company that would hire me later in the 1970's when I ended up living outside Detroit in what was basically a GM company town, Flint, Michigan.  Mad Men's portrayal of Buick as a client of McCann Erickson was very near and dear and real.   One of my many jobs was in the Buick Audit Department, and we had one person whose sole job was to audit McCann Erickson billings.

(Sidebar:  And the woman who audited these billings, a slender, harsh looking platinum blonde, was having a [blatantly obvious] affair with the married Audit department head.  That sex stuff was real, although not quite as extensive as Mad Men portrayed it to be.)

In the second to final episode, when one of the characters was informed that they would end up getting hired by Buick and living in Detroit, I started laughing and sarcastically yelled at the TV, oh no, if you're getting a job with Buick, you get to live in beautiful Flint, which is even better (choke) than Detroit!

The Final Show

I don't know how this could be called a "finale" because it left itself open for everything to be continued, especially with the character Don Draper.   Everything was plausibly believable except for Peggy Olsen and Stan Rizzo, there could at least been some build up there from previous shows, but this came out of nowhere.  But there is plenty of potential drama in the new alliances.

In the scene where Don was stranded in Alva, Oklahoma, getting his Cadillac fixed, too much time was spent lingering on the coke machine that the hotel owner told Don he wasn't interested in fixing.  Then there's the tweets about the dress of some of those in the hippy commune being eerily similar to some of those in the coke commercial the show ended with.  Then there's the conversation with Peggy who tells him that work needs to be done on the Coca-Cola account.  So every implication was that Don was going back to the McCann Erickson to make Coke the "real thing."

(On the other hand, when Peggy was told that someday people were going to know her name and that by 1980 she'd be a creative director like Don, it's also a good possibility Peggy was behind the Coca-Cola commercial.  Too much was pointing to Don, however.)

Then there's Joan Harris snorting the other coke (which was why coke was called coke originally, if I'm not mistaken).   That portends of what Don's new inebriant of choice might be.

If I could do my own continuation, and it's now the early 1970's, I'd have Don coming to Detroit to meet the incoming president of GM, one John DeLorean, who at the time could easily match the dapper good looks of Don Draper, along with the womanizing.   Don's knowledge of cars and his racing in the salt flats in the final episode would make another good fit.  Those two would make a great pair.  John DeLorean could even introduce Don to cocaine.  Oh the possibilities!

The Forrest Gump Connection

Just need that fickle feather of fate.

When Don gave his Cadillac to the kid in Alva who took the "kitchen" money and sat at the bus stop, I could see the feather drift through the air in front of him.   They could have ended it right there, but it was too similar.    "Mad Men" took us through the sixties in almost the same way  the movie Forrest Gump took us through the sixties and seventies.  One was an innocent, naive and slow-witted, while the other was a corrupted, hedonistic genius, and yet, there at the end, they both sat waiting for a bus and nothing really mattered, and money had no meaning for they had given away most of it.  One a war hero, one a deserter.   One whose first love interest died of  HIV due to unprotected sex, one whose first love interest died of cancer from smoking.   Both were ready, as Don would say, to "move forward."  

And time for me to "move forward" on the Great Debate.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 8

The following is a table which describes many of the fallacies which riddle presuppositional apologetics; in this case, the "Clarkian" apologetic as used by Jason Petersen.  Although most of it applies to "VanTilian" presuppositional apologetics as well.

Fallacy	Fallacy Description	Evidence in  Clarkian PA
Appeal to Authority	Something is true because it's from an authority	The Bible (Biblical verses of God as "ultimate authority")solves the problem of skepticism.  The Bible (Biblical verses) reveal that "all other worldviews are false."
Argument from Omniscience	An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge	Best expressed in the Romans 1:18-21 verses that anyone who disbelieves knows (the Christian) god exists, but they suppress the truth.  Using Bible as "omniscient" source, omnisciently revealed, with the revelations omnisciently verified to be true.
Appeal to Ignorance	Opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion Is proof of its validity.	"We know all other worldviews are false...and since we know all others are false, that makes the Christian worldview true."
Ipse Dixit	A dogmatic statement which the opponent is expected to accept as valid.	"The First Principle" that the Bible is the Word of God.  "The most basic way to distort an issue is to deny that it exists."  Believers deny recognizing that "The First Principle" is not an axiom because it is not self-evident as it is premised on the unproven supernatural.
False dilemma	Only 2 outcomes are inevitable	(1) Non-believers must accept the Christian worldview because  (2) the Bible says all other worldviews are false (and therefore irrational).
Ad hominem/ Poisoning the Well	Damning /discrediting the source.	Condemning Biblical study sources; condemning other philosophies; saying that non-believers "suppress the truth" as if they are lying, and claiming non-believers are "fools."
Tautology	Qualifying argument in such a way that it makes it impossible to disprove.	The Bible is the word of God. We know this because the Bible itself tells us so.  (Notice that impossible to disprove supports unfalsifiability)
Shifting the Burden	Burden of proof is shifted to the side which is not making the positive claim	Asking non-believer for solution to problem of skepticism, or asking them to account for "reality" or how their reasoning is valid (when the believer cannot account for their god.)
Special Pleading	Someone or something is exempt from standards for no good reason	In the above example, the believer will say their god does not have to be accounted for, as it is exempt from any accounting. Claiming the same circular reasoning used by Christians is exempt from circularity because it is labeled "virtuous."
Reification	Creating a concrete "thing" out of an idea	Logical absolutes are termed "laws" which were "created by" or "part of " the Christian god.
Equivocation	Using terms in two ways in the same sentence	Claiming the "laws of logic" are "followed" as if they were "laws" when it really means "no exception (known) to the concept" (used at the same time as the conceptual usage)
Proof by Assertion	Proposition repeatedly stated regardless of its contradiction	"The First Principle" that "The Bible is the Word of God, because the Bible itself reveals that it is" already indicated to be a tautology.

 

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 7

Jason Petersen recently published his third "rebuttal" to my finding that his presuppositional argument is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be accepted as believable or rational.

It should be said that all religions are in themselves unfalsifiable; however, the presuppositional argument makes additional claims:  it not only claims certainty (which moves it beyond a faith claim, as faith by definition must contain an element of uncertainty), it makes a comparative claim that it is the "superior" worldview while all others are "inferior."  This should make it applicable to reality, and therefore testable.  By dismissing any testing, Petersen has made its application to reality non-demonstrable thereby putting the entire apologetic back in with religious faith.

His response has been to attack my ability to respond to him, instead of directly answering the question.  This is traditional, and predictable, for presuppositionalists.  Whenever a presuppositionalist challenges the non-believers' ability to criticize or object to the propositions of their argument, they are evading their burden of response (even though they are likely perfectly capable of having an answer). 

Even if Jason Petersen presented a cogent argument that I was a raving lunatic, it does not change the irrelevancy of his "can't ever be wrong" argument:  it's still unfalsifiable.  His argument has failed to meet the criterion of testability.  And regardless of his claims about me, the unfalsifiability of his argument has been established by Petersen's own statements about it, not any by me.   

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 6

An Example of Jason Petersen "Logic"

 

As part of my "Conversation with Jason Petersen" series I had planned to do a post where I described Petersen's tortuously conjured presuppositional methodology in attempting to prove I was not being logical. It was essentially taking certain words I was using and then ascribing them to a worldview; for example, if I referred to a "practical application" of something, he would say my worldview was that of a pragmatist, and then, almost as if he was scripted, he'd transform that into "the pragmatic worldview was not rational" and therefore I was not rational.

Lo and behold, George at the blog Misplaced Grace did something even better: he wrote up a parody following a similar discussion he had with a presuppositionalist, which precisely describes what Jason seems to be doing. I don't need to do anything further, because this is so illustrative. The names have been replaced with mine and Jason's. Please enjoy.

Jason: Let’s talk about that dog over there. Would you say that that dog is gray?

Karen: That is an elephant, Jason. It’s ten feet tall and has a big trunk. It is an Elephant.

Jason: I didn’t ask you if it was an elephant, Karen. I asked you if that dog is gray. Just answer the question. But be careful, you will have to accept the consequences of your answer.

Karen: Seriously. It’s a goddamn elephant. If your question is “Is that quadruped gray?”, then yes, yes it is.

Jason: I told you to be careful how you answer the question. You should have listened to me. You see Karen, if you answer yes, you are saying that that animal is a dog, and you are committing the fallacy of mutual contradiction. An elephant can’t be a dog, you see. If you answer no, then you are saying that it is not gray, and by their nature all elephants are gray. So again, you are wrong.

Karen: First off, that is the most retarded thing anyone has ever said to me. Second, what about albino elephants? Are they not white, or at least cream colored?

Jason: See, you lost the argument when you answered the question. I am not obliged now to answer any of your arguments because you are wrong no matter how you answer. I claim victory. You admitted that you are incapable of simple color recognition or of species identification, so in your world any animal can be any color, or any species. That makes no logical sense.

Karen: Seriously? Are you even sane?

Jason: I cannot argue with someone who cannot grasp simple logic. Have a nice day.

(aside) Wow, I sure showed her. I got her to admit that an elephant was a dog. What an ass.


That is the logic that he follows. Then he tells everyone that he saw an elephant with an atheist who insisted it was a gray dog. 

Update 5/14/2014:  Compare the above to this, which Petersen actually stated in his last posted comment to me:

One may ask, what else is a Christian supposed to do? There is no authority that is higher than God Almighty(Hebrews 6:13). Since The Bible is my first principle, I will inevitably appeal to it when I defend Christianity. Karen apparently doesn’t understand the nature of axioms, when you defend an axiom, you will have to appeal to it. If you appeal to another principle to defend your axiom, then what you are asserting your axiom is is not really your axiom. Further, I previously asked Karen how she knows her reasoning is valid. By Karen’s logic, she can’t appeal to her own reasoning, because she would have to appeal to it in order to defend it, and of course, Karen thinks that appealing to first principles is fallacious. Karen then offers me rope to hang myself with, but I suspect that I am not the only one who will find her offer to be ironic.

(Face palm!)

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 5

No, I didn't refute Petersen; Petersen did

 

Jason Petersen has already responded to my May 7 "Part 3" post. Of course, he did it at his website without any link or reference from his home page, so I had to find out about it from others who have had run-ins with Petersen.

Karen claims that because my arguments are unfalsifiable, therefore, my 24,000 post was destroyed. She then goes on to, in behavior that is ever so typical for her, straw man me by saying that I couldn’t be wrong, that, therefore, my worldview is not testable. Now, why did I say that my worldview is unfalsifiable? Anyone who read my previous response to her would clearly see that I said that the reason why my worldview is unfalsifiable is because it’s true. How can one falsify the truth? Such a notion is nonsensical. If Karen ever figures out a way to show that the truth is actually false, then perhaps she should go write a book on it. I am sure such a spectacle would have philosophers in awe.

(ONE MORE FACE PALM!)  Jason refuses to recognize what unfalsifiable really means. His "worldview" can neither be proven true nor false. To use the quote from Part 2 of my posts to Petersen: there’s nothing you could ever observe that would be inconsistent with it. In other words, the world where his worldview is true appears exactly identical to the world where his worldview is false. His worldview tells you nothing about the world, and nothing in the world tells you about his worldview. So, there is no reason to believe. The failure to meet the criterion of falsifiability is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.

But Petersen still has to find a way to pat himself on the back and puff out his chest:

Karen also quotes me concerning when I pointed out that if the foundation of her argument is refuted, then her examples fall along with it. That said, I’d like to say something to Karen directly: The problem is, Karen, that the foundation of your argument is still refuted. You have not bothered to respond to the argument that I erected against your idea to test revelation with IQ tests, nor did you respond to the paper that I cited that showed that IQ tests aren’t reliable after all.

It doesn't matter WHAT Petersen claims now about whatever my worldview may be, because in asserting his worldview as "unfalsifiable" he refuted himself. He denigrates something that could possibly test it ("IQ tests aren't reliable after all") which confirms it further.   I may have already suggested trying other tests (there are many) of reasoning and logic skills, but I have this sneaking suspicion that Petersen would conveniently find none of them to be "reliable." 

In his new diatribe, he continues to use Bible verses to back up his claims for "revelation" he receives...from the Bible (?!!!)....while trying to exempt his god as an "appeal to authority" in a special pleading. It's a sad display of circularity.

I'll continue answering him, however, i.e., Jason, here's some more rope if you want it.

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 4

Around the Worldview in 80 Lies (...Half Truths, Deceptions, Misrepresentations and other assorted Falsehoods)

Jason Petersen, throughout his 24,000-word reply to Parts 1 and 2 of our "conversation", told me I was dishonest and lying numerous times; I counted over 20, not including the allegations of dishonesty in his previous post.  The purpose of it was to discredit my character, and of course, to demonize atheists.   So, I will likewise respond to his repeated ad hominem.  I will try to provide some brief explanation for each of his false hoods, and try to describe them for what they are.  He stated that I like to ridicule and mock Christians.  He says he made me look foolish. As I understand the argument for the most part, I know I do not need "to feel foolish" at all.  And if Petersen feels mocked or ridiculed....he is only doing it to himself.

 

Each capitalized "LIE" of Petersen's post (or more appropriate description) is followed by a direct quote of what he said, along with an explanation if required.  I include context where required, although most of his pretensions stand on their own.

 

LIE:  "...she has laced this very paragraph with prejudicial conjecture."  Presuppositional Apologetics IS prejudicial conjecture.

LIE:  " the one benefit that I named was that Christianity solves the problem of skepticism." No, it does NOT solve the problem of skepticism (see last post).  An appeal to supernatural authority does not solve the problem, or as I will call it, "authoritay magic."

LIE:  (False fallacy claim) " After quoting me, Karen moves to straw man..."

LIE:  As a Christian, I believe that we should all be “rational.”  We are both equally rational: if he were going to be honest, Petersen should replace the word "rational" with "Fundamentalist Evangelical Calvinist Literalist."

LIE:  "... in order for her to claim that anything is useful(while being rational) she would have to have a first principle that will solve the problem of skepticism."  (see above)

LIE:  " if she actually tried to solve the problem of skepticism, it would remind her that Christianity is true."  Christianity doesn't solve it either.

LIE:  "She then says that the problem of skepticism is irrelevant to reality. This is quite an ignorant statement to be sure."  If that's true, claiming it is solved by "authoritay magic" makes it more irrelevant and just as ignorant.

LIE:  "Her conception of reality, like other atheists, is delusional and fabricated." 

LIE:  "Alex [Botten] is irrational both in the context of a debate and outside the debate."

A Conversation with Jason Petersen, Part 3

MULTIPLE FACE PALMS!!!!

 

On April 30, Jason Petersen answered my video and two part blog where I responded to our conversation in the comment section of his blog. He quoted both of our previous commentaries quite a bit so this redundancy added to the huge word count and length of his post (24,000+ words).

But I suppose he thought he'd "Gish gallop" me back for "Gish galloping" him. I must say, his post was of tremendous help to me in understanding presuppositionalism, as he "answered" some questions I have seen posed by other atheists for which I've never seen a direct responses. Although throughout, I had multiple face-palming (hence the subtitle), rolling-my-eyes laughter at some of them. I thought I'd concentrate on those which expose the flaws of his presuppositional methodology the most..

1. Unfalsifiable arguments are not rational. Petersen declared at one point "if the foundation of her argument is refuted, her examples fall along with it..." Without realizing it, Petersen's proud affirmation of his "not being wrong" obliterated the foundation of his 24,000-word novella, because he repeatedly made statements confirming that his argument was unfalsifiable (and his examples fell with them):

[Petersen] I would think that anything that is ultimately true would be unfalsifiable. You know, because the proposition, Christianity, is already true.

***

“[Karen] So, Jason, are you going to say it, then? Just say it at the beginning when you present your argument “My worldview is the only true one and I can’t be wrong….I am very clear that this is my position.”

[Petersen] There is no need for further clarification, because I have said it numerous times to you and others. Christianity is the only worldview that can be true, all other worldviews are false. Any other starting point besides revelation of God through scripture will reduce to skepticism. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is able to provide a stable epistemology. There is no other worldview other than Christianity that is rational. Christianity is the only worldview that is true, and I cannot be wrong about it. I think I have, once again, spelled this out to Karen. ***

"...[Karen] and that no matter what argument or evidence is presented, there is no way that you can be contradicted, your propositions can make no predictions, and even if you’re wrong YOU will never find out because you have closed yourself off from any correction.”

[Petersen] This again, shows that Karen is an empiricist, for she assumes that we must be able to make predictions in order for any knowledge to be justified. This is an assertion that Karen has not bothered to support. If all propositions must be testable in order for them to be justified, then one must ask how we would test whether or not a justified proposition makes a proposition justified? Certainly, Karen cannot due so, and ends up contradicting herself again. All first principles are ultimately indemonstrable, however, they can be tested for logical consistency. This is also true of the Christian worldview, but no axiom can be empirically tested. They can only be tested logically.

***

[Petersen] If I presuppose revelation of God through scripture and I say that I can’t be wrong about it, what am I saying? I am saying that I cannot be wrong about God’s revelation through scripture. The two statements are equivalent.

It seems that Karen is stuck on the fact that I will not accept any secular alternative to the Christian worldview. She is correct.

Right, it is very telling. I am open about my position, but Karen is not open about her’s.