We have a review of Molyneux’s ridiculous book, The Argument, right here on Pharyngula, by Joshua Stein. If you enjoyed that, you may also like this other review of Molyneux by Alexander Douglas. It’s pseudo-philosophy for the alt-right.
But didn’t I say this was a book designed to flatter the egos of its readers? Well, it is. But this requires the readers, who are taken as complete troglodytes, to be shown in turn to be vastly intellectually superior to somebody else, namely those silly, emo, irrational liberals who don’t understand The Argument.
Thus Molyneux is led to make daring leaps from his slap-headed logical platitudes to ridiculous critiques of liberal views. Since, again, he’s writing entirely for an audience of white men who think they’re geniuses obscured behind the cataracted judgment of the world, he doesn’t have to work hard here. Having taken several excruciating pages to explain precisely how if Fa is true for all a then there is not an a for which ~Fa, he then infers that campus rape culture is a liberal myth. The Einsteins of the alt-right will of course see the link by intuition, but as a courtesy Molyneux includes an argument for those of us less blessed:
If I have some sexual fetish role-play fantasy about being raped, and I then ask my partner to simulate such an attack, I cannot reasonably charge my partner with rape.
Of course not. Consent couldn’t possibly ever be withdrawn. That would go against logic. Here is the proof: A if and only if A. How the hell is that relevant, you ask? Well, now you’re getting emotional. And emotional reactions (from women) are by definition coercive and go against the peaceful free-speech standards of The Argument:
A woman who pouts and withdraws emotionally if you don’t do what she wants is not using The Argument, because she punishes you for noncompliance, rather than making a reasonable case for her preferences.
One of the fundamental ideas of science is that you don’t work to prove a hypothesis — you test it to see if you can break it. It’s one of the reasons that creationism is objectionable, it’s because they don’t do science. They start with their conclusion and then finagle the evidence to make it fit.
Molyneux is a fine example of how not to do philosophy. He also has a set of priors, and what he’s doing is finagling logic to support them.
I’m kind of feeling that that is even more offensive than making up evidence.