You don't feel. Therefore you are a liberal!

The following turnaround in logic has to be the most novel definition of conservatism and liberalism I have seen -- reaching new heights in twisted thinking:

This attitude toward belief -- that one should believe a proposition only if one has articulable reasons for it -- represents liberalism in the epistemic realm. The contrast is epistemic conservatism, which holds that belief -- in God, in the importance of marriage, in the value of tradition -- needs no defense. To a conservative, beliefs are presumed innocent until proven guilty. To a liberal, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent. The liberal epistemic standard begs the question against political conservatism, just as a conservative epistemic standard would beg the question against political liberalism. Conservatives must not fall for the liberal trick of making nonbelief the default position. (Via InstaPundit.)

But then I learned that the author is a professor of logic.

This worried me, for I don't like to be fooled. Something had to be wrong.

In the above, Professor Burgess-Jackson's original Tech Central Station post was itself fisked by another TCS writer, Kenneth Silber, who found inconsistencies such as this:

Earlier you advocated conservatism by writing "It is never too late to let the heart be ruled by the brain." Now, you seem to be dismissing the brain. Isn't it the brain, rather than the heart, that tries to have articulated reasons for belief? Isn't it important that exponents of a political philosophy try to have reasons and arguments, rather than just state their beliefs as dogma? Besides, liberals with unexamined beliefs and unsupported assumptions do not seem all that rare.

Let's look at the logical conflicts:

1. Liberals are wrong for questioning (rational) instead of believing (emotional).

2. Conservatives are right for believing instead of examining.

3. Conservatives are right for questioning instead of believing.

4. Liberals are wrong for believing instead of questioning.

I am aghast. But I still think someone (liberal or otherwise) is playing tricks on me.

This reminds me of the pro-drug people who will jump up and down in praise of ever-more-draconian drug laws no matter what happens:

1. If drug use goes up, it means the laws aren't working and we therefore need more laws and more enforcement.

2. If drug use goes down, it means the laws are working and we therefore need more laws and more enforcement.

3. Anyone who disagrees with the above reasoning, is part of the problem. Their mentality (the "climate" they created) makes us need these laws. Moreover, they are an "enemy" in the "war" which "we" must "fight."

But there is more. Not completely trusting Burgess-Jackson, I poked around and found this definition of epistemic conservatism as:

the concept that new theories or models are treated with skepticism until they are proven to be valid and useful.

PARENTHETICAL NOTE: I am NOT attempting to confuse epistemic conservatism with the crude logical error of "older is better".

[ED. NOTE: "Older is better" is a topic I have discussed before in this blog.]

Then I found this:

For a theist, the belief that God exists is deeply entrenched, probably more than any other belief. If it turns out to be incompatible with some other, less-entrenched belief, the theist, if rational, will abandon that other belief. Entrenchment, however, is a matter of degree. Even though the logical tension can be resolved by abandoning belief in God, it won't be, it needn't be, and arguably it shouldn't be. We might think of this as epistemic conservatism, for it cautions us to give up as little as possible to maintain overall coherence (i.e., to "conserve" our beliefs). (I leave it to you to describe epistemic liberalism [reform of belief] and radicalism [revolutionary change in belief]. Different people have different epistemic principles.)

This is why it is silly to think that the problem of evil -- the problem of reconciling belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly good being with belief that there is evil -- will (or should) turn a theist into an agnostic. Epistemic conservatism dictates that belief in the existence of evil be abandoned before belief in the existence of God, for it is less entrenched. Whatever else you might want to say about it, theism is neither incoherent nor irrational.

However, Professor Burgess-Jackson has another test: which audience is listening to the argument.

If effective argumentation is necessarily ad hominem in nature, then evaluation of an argument must attend to its audience. Let me illustrate this with an historical example. The French mathematician/philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) argued that it is in one's interest to believe in ("wager for") the Christian god. One of his premises implies that there are just two possibilities: Either the Christian god exists or no god exists. Some critics have charged that no self-respecting atheist or agnostic would accept this premise, for obviously there are other logical possibilities: a nonChristian god, for example, or many gods.

Is this a legitimate criticism? No. Pascal's argument was not directed to atheists or agnostics. It was directed to backsliding Christians in general and to his backsliding Christian friends in particular. These individuals, raised in the Christian church, could be presumed to accept the premise, even if an atheist or an agnostic would not. To a backsliding Christian, there really are just two (live) options: the very ones Pascal described. Pascal, who was smarter than any of us (take my word for it), chose his premises wisely; he chose premises that he knew his interlocutors accepted. Any other premises would have frustrated his purpose, which was to save the souls of his benighted, misguided friends.

Obviously, Burgess-Jackson feels otherwise.

Well, I suppose you could say that either Burgess-Jackson is right about logic or else there is no logic.

I'll close with this logical classic:

Every decision you make, including what to eat, has costs and consequences. If you eat the flesh of an animal, then you are responsible not just for its death but for how it was made to live. That you yourself didn't do the killing is irrelevant, although it has the convenient effect of hiding the awful costs of your action from you. If you aren't prepared to raise and kill a turkey, don't eat one. It's that simple.

Much as I like it when things are made simple, if I didn't know Burgess-Jackson was a Bush supporter, I'd positively swear he was slamming him for the Iraqi "Christmas turkey" incident.

But let's stick with logic, folks; the fact that he supports the president must mean that he believes that Bush was serving plastic turkey, and thus, no harm was done!

Case closed.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: Arthur Silber is also very skeptical of Burgess-Jackson:

I find it altogether amazing that this writer actually teaches subjects such as logic and ethics. Allow me to translate that last paragraph in terms of what it actually means: "liberalism in the epistemic realm" means that one must have evidence for a proposition before one is prepared to accept it as true. "Epistemic conservatism," on the other hand, means that one can believe absolutely anything -- so long as it is sanctioned by "tradition" -- and nothing needs any "defense," that is, nothing requires any reasons to support it whatsoever. If a society has engaged in a practice long enough or believed certain notions, no matter how nonsensical, for a sufficient length of time, that is defense enough.

UPDATE: Try as I might to give Professor Burgess-Jackson every benefit of the doubt, I think that his post -- driving a wedge between conservatism and logic -- is bad news.

For conservatism and logic.

And I'm more confused than ever before about what is a conservative?