Citat:
Det här är bra och alldeles sant. 
Hon sätter fingret på det jag känner instinktivt när Anders Tegnell öppnar käften:
Hon sätter fingret på det jag känner instinktivt när Anders Tegnell öppnar käften:Ina Hallströmhttps://www.facebook.com/inahall/posts/10160775612568636
I am constantly reminded of Freud's so called "kettle logic" these days.
Kettle logic is a sort of rhetorical device where multiple arguments are used to defend a point, but the arguments are inconsistent with each other.
Today, Sweden’s state epidemiologist — who is a notorious rhetorician — gave a prime example in his answer to criticism raised by Björn Olsen. According to Olsen there were several mistakes made in the Swedish strategy.
Anders Tegnell said:
— We can't really tell today what has been right or wrong, and a mistake is something you make more or less intentionally, and there are none.
Just let that sentence sink in for a moment.
Both Derrida and Žižek have made references to Freud's kettle logic. In The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud used the example of a man who is accused by his neighbour of having returned a kettle in a damaged condition. The man offers the following three arguments in defense:
1. That he had returned the kettle undamaged
2. That it was already damaged when he borrowed it
3. That he had never borrowed it in the first place
Argument 2 refutes 1 and argument 3 refutes both 1 and 2.
Let's use the same format to break Tegnell's statement down. Tegnell said:
1. We can't really tell today what has been right or wrong.
2. A mistake is something you make more or less intentionally.
3. There are none.
Argument 1 refutes argument 3: if we can't tell yet, how can he say no mistakes have been made? Argument 2 refutes 1 and 3 by saying it's not even relevant to speak of mistakes because a mistake is linked to some sort of intention. Since he had no intention, this cannot, by definition, be a mistake at all. He actually starts discussing the very definition of "mistake" in argument 2, implying that Olsen used the wrong concept in his critique. But why then, one wonders, did he accept the concept of mistake in arguments 1 and 3? In one simple sentence he is saying that they made no mistakes, that it's too early to tell if any mistakes were made AND that it is irrelevant to speak of mistakes in the first place.
This kind of logic has been very common in the claims made by the Public Health Agency and Tegnell in particular excels in them.
In Sweden's corona response so many things remain unanswered, the same arguments are repeated over and over again without reference to any evidence supporting the claims.
Many times arguments just don't make any sense, but that might be difficult to catch when listening to statements live. It sounds good, but there is no logic to them. If anything, the logic above is the weird logic of dreams, as Freud noted. Once you start to notice and think about this kind of statements, the lack of coherent logic is frustrating, you usally get annoyed or even start laughing when arguments refute themselves or are obviously inconsistent.
To sum up: Kettle logic is a really great device for comedy and dream-work but less so in real life arguments and discussions.
~
The quote:
"– Det går inte i dag att säga vad som varit rätt eller fel, och misstag är något som man gör mer eller mindre avsiktligt och några sådana finns inte."
https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/olsen-slar-tillbaka-efter-kritiken-mot-22-forskarna/
Detta är Tegnells största tillgång, förmågan att prata på, utan att bli ifrågasatt. Han förvillar den som ställer en fråga genom att krångla in sig i en massa förklaringar så att det är först i efterhand man begriper vad han sagt. Det är inte det lättaste att ställa bra följdfrågor till en sådan person.
Dessutom måste man i efterhand lyssna flera ggr på det han säger för att bena ut det och upptäcka motsägelserna. Det är inte helt lätt att ha och göra med en sådan person. Han pratar som en politiker.
Skapa ett konto eller logga in för att kommentera
Du måste vara medlem för att kunna kommentera