An alternative
| Liberty Pal |
| Seeking solutions for PTSD. |
To their credit our lawmakers have, occasionally, made efforts at reconciling our laws with
our advanced knowledge. Their efforts, however, serve as a modern-day illustration of
Winston Churchill's words “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
they've tried everything else.”
The words of Churchill, again, transcend time in the statement "A lie gets halfway around the
world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” In our single-minded focus on
eradicating more senseless deaths by another drunk driver - a legitimate and noble cause;
we have actually INCREASED the risk of premature death to a larger population!
Many of us are familiar with the "duck test" illustration of inductive reasoning. We have even
formulated tough anti-dwi legislation using liberal application of duck-typing as our guide to
classification and sentencing. The legislators, then, removed judicial discretion as they
penned in mandatory sentencing guidelines. In all of their discussion, debate, and other
consideration they seem to have forgotten what, I guess, could be called the pollywog factor.
our advanced knowledge. Their efforts, however, serve as a modern-day illustration of
Winston Churchill's words “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after
they've tried everything else.”
The words of Churchill, again, transcend time in the statement "A lie gets halfway around the
world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” In our single-minded focus on
eradicating more senseless deaths by another drunk driver - a legitimate and noble cause;
we have actually INCREASED the risk of premature death to a larger population!
Many of us are familiar with the "duck test" illustration of inductive reasoning. We have even
formulated tough anti-dwi legislation using liberal application of duck-typing as our guide to
classification and sentencing. The legislators, then, removed judicial discretion as they
penned in mandatory sentencing guidelines. In all of their discussion, debate, and other
consideration they seem to have forgotten what, I guess, could be called the pollywog factor.
©2008 LibertyPal
When I was in about ninth grade I walked into my math class, one day, to see the statement on the blackboard " Hockey
players are gay." The teacher was absent as we filed into class and my assumption was that SOMEONE was trying to get
hurt. Not being a hockey player myself I decided it wasn't my fight and sat down.
As if on cue our teacher entered the room, viewed the blackboard, and turned to the class with a sharp "take your seats!" My
first thought was that maybe HE had been a hockey player.. a nervous, expectant, silence fell over the room as we
prepared for what we anticipated to be the worst math class ever.
Our teacher took a moment to appreciate our faces before he continued in a perfectly reasonable, conversational, tone.
"Did that statement offend anybody?" The expected portion of our class erupted into various indications of their feelings
regarding the person who'd written that. Regaining control the teacher asked one of the hockey players why he was
offended. His response was an emphatic "I'm not gay!"
With circles and sentences we learned that the statement had been true - at least POSSIBLY true - as well as my
classmates claim to heterosexual preferences. At once we were officially indoctrinated into the realm of those who
understand deductive reasoning. Those who know that there CAN be more than one correct answer to "the question" - we
learned, also, the process of elimination that excludes the incorrect answers.
The act of reasoning, called logical reasoning, is the process of using a tool. To consider the tool-set complete, or, even
competent without the inclusion of abductive reasoning is like doing the same to a set of SAE wrenches with no ½ inch
wrench. Abductive reasoning is, basically, brainstorming for known possible solutions to the present problem. I mean the
words "solutions" and "problem" in the mathematical sense and suggest no connotation to either.
players are gay." The teacher was absent as we filed into class and my assumption was that SOMEONE was trying to get
hurt. Not being a hockey player myself I decided it wasn't my fight and sat down.
As if on cue our teacher entered the room, viewed the blackboard, and turned to the class with a sharp "take your seats!" My
first thought was that maybe HE had been a hockey player.. a nervous, expectant, silence fell over the room as we
prepared for what we anticipated to be the worst math class ever.
Our teacher took a moment to appreciate our faces before he continued in a perfectly reasonable, conversational, tone.
"Did that statement offend anybody?" The expected portion of our class erupted into various indications of their feelings
regarding the person who'd written that. Regaining control the teacher asked one of the hockey players why he was
offended. His response was an emphatic "I'm not gay!"
With circles and sentences we learned that the statement had been true - at least POSSIBLY true - as well as my
classmates claim to heterosexual preferences. At once we were officially indoctrinated into the realm of those who
understand deductive reasoning. Those who know that there CAN be more than one correct answer to "the question" - we
learned, also, the process of elimination that excludes the incorrect answers.
The act of reasoning, called logical reasoning, is the process of using a tool. To consider the tool-set complete, or, even
competent without the inclusion of abductive reasoning is like doing the same to a set of SAE wrenches with no ½ inch
wrench. Abductive reasoning is, basically, brainstorming for known possible solutions to the present problem. I mean the
words "solutions" and "problem" in the mathematical sense and suggest no connotation to either.
Say, for instance, you've recently purchased a new home with a pond in your yard. Intending
to purchase some fish for your hypothetical pond, and not wanting to pay what you feel are
exorbitant "pet store" prices, you visit a local farmers market. Not finding the koi you'd hoped
for you're about to give-up when you notice a farmer sitting by a horse trough full of water. As
you approach you notice the sign in front says "haletudse - $2.50 / pail" and the water
seems to virtually boil with activity.
When you try to question the farmer you find a language barrier prevents him from properly
understanding, or answering, your questions. Peering into the trough you see what appears
to be a million small fish. Feeling wise as you recall the duck test you see what appears to
be a fish, it breathes with gills like a fish, it swims with a tail like a fish, it even has a mouth
like a fish! You declare it a fish of some sort "in another language" and decide to buy four
pails on account of their smaller than anticipated size.
Congratulations! You've just gotten a great deal on four pails full of common tadpoles from
a Danish emigrant. On the bright side - perhaps you'll notice less mosquitoes? Beware the
local snakes who've been just wishing someone would buy about four pails of tadpoles for
that pond!
to purchase some fish for your hypothetical pond, and not wanting to pay what you feel are
exorbitant "pet store" prices, you visit a local farmers market. Not finding the koi you'd hoped
for you're about to give-up when you notice a farmer sitting by a horse trough full of water. As
you approach you notice the sign in front says "haletudse - $2.50 / pail" and the water
seems to virtually boil with activity.
When you try to question the farmer you find a language barrier prevents him from properly
understanding, or answering, your questions. Peering into the trough you see what appears
to be a million small fish. Feeling wise as you recall the duck test you see what appears to
be a fish, it breathes with gills like a fish, it swims with a tail like a fish, it even has a mouth
like a fish! You declare it a fish of some sort "in another language" and decide to buy four
pails on account of their smaller than anticipated size.
Congratulations! You've just gotten a great deal on four pails full of common tadpoles from
a Danish emigrant. On the bright side - perhaps you'll notice less mosquitoes? Beware the
local snakes who've been just wishing someone would buy about four pails of tadpoles for
that pond!
For example: If the "evidence" is 25, and the problem is multiplication, the solution is 5,25,and 1. (when limited to whole
numbers).If you know (or find) the solution does not include a 1 you can, through deductive reasoning, throw out the 25 and
call your solution 5.
When the "evidence" says "almost 25" we call that ( in whole numbers ) 24. We can say that the solution is 24, 1, 6, and,4.
When we are given the information that the solution does not contain a one, and, has only one even number we find our list
of possible solutions short the correct answer.
Using abductive reasoning we are able to establish that 8 and 3 fit that criteria. What if we continue, for a while, on just the
set of 1, 3, 4,6,8, and, 24 without issue. Is that proof that the set is complete? No! If, at some future point, we learn from the
lonely duce(2) that 12 is "available" are we justified in saying they're not 24 just because they're not on our list? Seems to
me we should add the set to our list of possible solutions for the day we're given the information that the solution includes
at least one number larger than 10 but smaller than 20.
numbers).If you know (or find) the solution does not include a 1 you can, through deductive reasoning, throw out the 25 and
call your solution 5.
When the "evidence" says "almost 25" we call that ( in whole numbers ) 24. We can say that the solution is 24, 1, 6, and,4.
When we are given the information that the solution does not contain a one, and, has only one even number we find our list
of possible solutions short the correct answer.
Using abductive reasoning we are able to establish that 8 and 3 fit that criteria. What if we continue, for a while, on just the
set of 1, 3, 4,6,8, and, 24 without issue. Is that proof that the set is complete? No! If, at some future point, we learn from the
lonely duce(2) that 12 is "available" are we justified in saying they're not 24 just because they're not on our list? Seems to
me we should add the set to our list of possible solutions for the day we're given the information that the solution includes
at least one number larger than 10 but smaller than 20.
To tie this all back into PTSD, suicide, or dwi may seem a daunting task at first. It isn't. We create our laws based on what
we know, or believe we know about the world. That's the theory, anyways.
While the assertion that "only an alcoholic would drink and drive repeatedly" breezes through the logical reasoning tests of
abductive and inductive reasoning relatively easily: it is proven untrue, instantly, when subjected to the test of deductive
reasoning. We recognized this when dealing with Bi-polar disorder and dwi. We have even created "dual-diagnosis" support
groups geared specifically for those individuals.
Bi-polar disorder is a psychiatric disorder. It deals with an imbalance in brain chemistry. PTSD, on the other hand, is
considered a psychological disorder. Our chemistry is fine, at least to start with, our cause is trauma. Our doctors tell us we
are experiencing a "normal reaction to an abnormal, traumatic, situation." Our doctors recognize, also, the importance of the
initial reaction, and response, to people with PTSD. That we have the ability to aggravate their condition, or to relieve it,
depending on the response chosen.
Given our current level of knowledge regarding PTSD, its causes, symptoms, treatment, and, our potential to influence the
final disposition of these individuals through our responses we are called, urgently, to reconcile our legislation to accept
that knowledge. The failure to do so is to turn your back on innocent victims of tragedy while you cast them off as criminal for
their "normal" reaction.
we know, or believe we know about the world. That's the theory, anyways.
While the assertion that "only an alcoholic would drink and drive repeatedly" breezes through the logical reasoning tests of
abductive and inductive reasoning relatively easily: it is proven untrue, instantly, when subjected to the test of deductive
reasoning. We recognized this when dealing with Bi-polar disorder and dwi. We have even created "dual-diagnosis" support
groups geared specifically for those individuals.
Bi-polar disorder is a psychiatric disorder. It deals with an imbalance in brain chemistry. PTSD, on the other hand, is
considered a psychological disorder. Our chemistry is fine, at least to start with, our cause is trauma. Our doctors tell us we
are experiencing a "normal reaction to an abnormal, traumatic, situation." Our doctors recognize, also, the importance of the
initial reaction, and response, to people with PTSD. That we have the ability to aggravate their condition, or to relieve it,
depending on the response chosen.
Given our current level of knowledge regarding PTSD, its causes, symptoms, treatment, and, our potential to influence the
final disposition of these individuals through our responses we are called, urgently, to reconcile our legislation to accept
that knowledge. The failure to do so is to turn your back on innocent victims of tragedy while you cast them off as criminal for
their "normal" reaction.
updated April 14, 2008
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |