{"id":1737,"date":"2012-03-04T23:32:29","date_gmt":"2012-03-05T07:32:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/?p=1737"},"modified":"2012-03-04T23:32:29","modified_gmt":"2012-03-05T07:32:29","slug":"logic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/2012\/03\/04\/logic\/","title":{"rendered":"Logic"},"content":{"rendered":"

Logic is not something that only Vulcans do on the television series, Star Trek<\/em>. Nor, is it the invention of television writers. We can actually blame the ancient Greeks for both the word and the concept. Aristotle wrote one of the first books on the subject and laid the foundations for the discipline. So today, anyone can take courses at universities in logic. <\/p>\n

It is a handy subject. It can teach us how to think. One of the aspects of the course that I found most enjoyable when I took it was what is called \u201cinformal logic.\u201d Specifically, we spent a lot of time looking at these wonderful things called \u201clogical fallacies:\u201d common mistakes in thinking that lead people to erroneous conclusions.<\/p>\n

Of course, most people don\u2019t know about \u201clogical fallacies\u201d and so when you find out about them, you can bamboozle your friends, become a logic nanny, or you can unmask politicians and advertisers who seem to use them the way a fish drinks water.<\/p>\n

\tThere are, of course, bunches of these logical fallacies. Whole books have been devoted to their analysis and even the chapter in my logic book was rather long. Said chapter concluded with a bunch of exercises where quotations from politicians and others were given for the student\u2019s enjoyment and enlightenment\u2014the hope being that having read the chapter, we could now identify the specific mistakes that had been made and give them nifty, impressive sounding Latin designations like argumentum ad hominem<\/em>. <\/p>\n

\tI will refrain from using fancy Latin words, however, and give more meaningful, plain English names for some of the most common errors of thought to which human beings are subject. Learn these, and annoy your friends with them, or better yet, laugh at politicians next time there\u2019s an election.<\/p>\n

\tSo what is an argumentum ad hominem<\/em>? Why, that\u2019s just an old fashioned \u201cinsult the guy.\u201d If you can\u2019t refute him, hit him. For instance: your friend was right when he points out that you are mistaken: the capital of California is Sacramento and not San Francisco. Don\u2019t put up with it. Instead, explain to your friend that he\u2019s ugly and his mother dresses him funny. Your political opponent whups you with facts and figures? Announce that he\u2019s an insensitive rich guy. Your buddy beats you in basketball? Say mean things about his girl friend.<\/p>\n

\tNotice that the nature of all logical fallacies is well illustrated by this particular one: they are irrelevant arguments. They distract from the actual issue at hand. In that sense, logical fallacies are like a stage magician: he depends on slight of hand and misdirecting your gaze. \u201cPay no attention to that man behind the curtain!\u201d<\/p>\n

\tWhen my parents warned me to do my homework or they\u2019d put me in time out, they were making use of the next logical fallacy and perhaps an equally common one: \u201cthe threat of force.\u201d Obviously, if I tell you that you need to do what I\u2019ve told you or \u201cI\u2019ll beat you senseless,\u201d though my argument will perhaps get you to perform, I have not convinced you to behave by reason. My argument is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what I\u2019ve said. \u201cThe sun is the center of the universe\u201d followed by the threat that to fail to accept this nugget will result in the loss of employment, or that you\u2019ll suffer a heresy trial, or that you\u2019ll be ostracized and ridiculed, does not prove that the statement is true. It has nothing, really, to do with whether the information is right. But by golly you\u2019ll get a lot of people to agree with you when you threaten, whether explicitly or implicitly.<\/p>\n

Have you ever had someone tell you something like, \u201cPurple flowers eaten when the moon is full will ensure rain the following week?\u201d And then when you question whether there\u2019s any proof to such an assertion, all you get back is, \u201cno one\u2019s ever proven me wrong.\u201d This is what is known as \u201can appeal to ignorance.\u201d It is a favorite of crackpots and those who sell snake oil. \u201cBrussels sprouts are the spawn of Satan. This statement has never been refuted.\u201d Such an assertion proves nothing at all, of course. The inability to refute something is not a demonstration that it is true. Likewise, if I were to say, \u201cString theory is false because it has not been proven true,\u201d my statement is just as invalid and illogical. Failure to prove something true does not mean it isn\u2019t. Just because Galileo couldn\u2019t prove to his inquisitors that the Earth went around the sun, does not mean that he was wrong. It just means he couldn\u2019t prove it. The truth or falsity of something is not dependent upon our ability to demonstrate it.<\/p>\n

No doubt you\u2019ve heard advertisements along these lines: \u201cFour out of five dentists\u201d or \u201c56 percent of those surveyed\u201d and so on. This is an \u201cappeal to the multitude\u201d or what\u2019s sometimes called an \u201cappeal to popularity,\u201d like the amusing bumper sticker, \u201cEat lamb. Ten million wolves can\u2019t be wrong.\u201d But of course it is obvious, once one thinks about it a moment, that simple popularity does not prove the truth or falsity of a concept. Just because the majority of Germans during the Nazi era thought Jews should be deprived of their civil rights, does not make their position correct. Just because the majority of southerners, prior to the Civil War, believed slavery was a fine institution did not make it so.<\/p>\n

Likewise, just because you can demonstrate that a famous actor believes that a particular brand of diet soda is the best, does not mean that I\u2019m going to like drinking it. This is known as an appeal to authority. \u201cOf course the Red Sox will win this year. My dad said so.\u201d No disrespect to your father, but just because he says so doesn\u2019t make it so. Telling me that your position is correct because a famous politician, scientist, preacher, or other authority says it is, does not prove you\u2019re correct. You\u2019ve merely given your position a character reference. But unless you can argue your position with facts and figures to support it, all the character references in the world won\u2019t rescue you. After all, the Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain, said of Adolph Hitler that he was \u201ca man that could be reasoned with,\u201d that he \u201ccould be depended upon,\u201d and then he waved the treaty in the air and announced that with Hitler\u2019s signature, it meant \u201cpeace in our time.\u201d Nevertheless, Hitler was soon bombing England, among other even more reprehensible things.<\/p>\n

And finally, one of my favorites, is what can be called the \u201cYou too\u201d argument. We see politicians using it frequently, and we\u2019ve seen totalitarian nightmare regimes make use of it too. In the old Cold War days it would go something like this. We\u2019d criticize the Soviet Union for starving a million Ukrainians while marching the rest into the Gulag to serve as slave laborers, and then the Communist thugs would turn around and say, \u201cWell, just look at how you treated the Indians.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or politician A will criticize politician B by saying, \u201cMy opponent cheated on his income tax and cheated on his wife. He\u2019s a cheater by nature.\u201d Politician B responds with, \u201cMy opponent has no room to talk. He\u2019s been caught shoplifting from the neighborhood Walmart and here\u2019s a copy of his mug shot.\u201d<\/p>\n

And of course the problem with this is quite simple. Say I criticize you for dropping your neighbor into a giant blender and serving him up with fava beans and a nice Chianti. Then you retort by telling me I have no room to judge, seeing as how you saw me holding up the local Savings and Loan last Tuesday. <\/p>\n

Consider. Does my reprehensible robbery make it okay for you to consume your neighbor? Probably not. It is irrelevant to the criticism I\u2019ve leveled. No matter how severe my mistakes, they have no bearing on yours. Nor do they suddenly make you virtuous. My boss will not take kindly to me if I point out how he has a lead foot, while he\u2019s chewing me out for losing the Jones account. Obviously, his lead foot has no bearing on my incompetence, now, does it?<\/p>\n

So the key in all of this logic stuff is to keep your eye on the ball and always ask yourself the very simple question: is this relevant to the matter at hand<\/em>? If it\u2019s not, then it is illogical. Simple as that.<\/p>\n

Send to Kindle<\/span><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Logic is not something that only Vulcans do on the television series, Star Trek. Nor, is it the invention of television writers. We can actually blame the ancient Greeks for both the word and the concept. Aristotle wrote one of … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_s2mail":"yes"},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1737"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1737"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1737\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1738,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1737\/revisions\/1738"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1737"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1737"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/nettelhorst.com\/blog1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1737"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}