One of the first and most pernicious actions of the progressives was the removal of logic from the school. Replacing logic with Hegelian dialectics took place over 75 years ago.
I've been thinking that one could create a business model in which offered after school classes in the trivium (language, logic and rhetoric). The class would include an introduction to classical logic and traditional grammar and include a discussion of the role of language, logic and rhetoric in a free society.
The founders of the United States studied a refined version of classical Aristotelian logic ... usually Arnauld or Watts. I would be tempted to take the outline from Arnauld modified for a free society.
An after school class in logic would be beneficial for the students. It would have the side benefit of driving the progressive overlords at the public school batty as they would end up with free thinking students willing to question the public school indoctrination.
Unfortunately, as with most of my business models, the first step in the business plan involves moving out of Utah and finding a group supportive of the concept. If anyone is interested in this type of business model, I would be more than happy to help them pull it off.
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label logic. Show all posts
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Fallacious Use of Fallacies
I was just in discussion about fallacies and thought I would jot down my opinion on the issue.
In my opinion, the primary reason for studying fallacies is to improve one's own reasoning abilities. When people accidentally make a fallacy in their system of reasoning, they end up with contradictions that undermine their efforts.
My observation is that the accusation of fallacy comes off poorly in argumentation.
I believe that classical thinkers got it right when they made a firm distinction between logic and rhetoric. We use logic to make sure our ideas are sound. We engage in rhetoric to express our ideas.
As people are instinctively competitive, it is natural to desire a bag of rhetorical tricks that can trip up one's opponents. Since the discovery of a fallacy in a system of reasoning can be devastating, it is tempting to use the accusation of fallacy as a rhetorical trick.
My observation is that such tricks rarely work in practice. More often than not the person making the accusation of fallacy comes off as small minded.
In a surprisingly large number of cases, the person quick to use accusations of fallacy as a rhetorical trick is wrong in their analysis of the fallacy.
For example, if you think such and such while I think so and so and I accuse you of a fallacy because such and such is logically incompatible with so and so; then my accusation of fallacy simply shows my ignorance of logic. Our argument about such and such v. so and so will be rife with contradictions simply because such and such and so and so are logically at odds.
If you look at the text of any substantive argument; you will find the text full of contradictory statements simply because there was a substantive disagreement. Person A says "X is True." Person B say "X is False." The transcript of the argument has the contradiction saying A is true and false.
The proper use of logic can help in a dispute in clarifying points. For example, if we agree on points A and B but disagree on point C, then your pointing out that my version of point C logically contradicts point A; then you've got something. For example, if two US Representatives are arguing about a law and Representative A points out that the proposal by Representative B violates the accepted understanding of the Constitution, then Representative A made a substantial blow against the opposition's argument.
In the political realm, a candidate might make inroads against the opposition candidate by pointing out logical fallacies. The gains are tenuous. The presence of a large number of fallacies in a candidates writing might show that the candidate is not authentically engaged in the reasoning process. This is especially true when one finds a candidate changing positions on a issue for the audience. A candidate who is pro-choice when speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on Monday, then pro-life at a church fundraiser on Tuesday can be proven a rogue by comparing the speeches.
If you find a person is intentionally using fallacies, misinformation or other negative tricks to fool people; then you do the world a favor by pointing out the dirty tricks to the people being tricked. Pointing out misinformation given by others can help people avoid mistakes. Finding logical errors in the works of errors does not mean that one's personal philosophy must be better. Popper did an eloquent job showing errors in the works of Plato, Hegel and Russell, yet that does not mean Popper's world view is any better.
The accusation of fallacy might show weakness in the opponent's reasoning. It rarely changes mass opinions on a topic. In some cases it shows weakness in the accuser's ability to reason.
If I hold premise A, and you hold premise B and the two premises are at odds with each other, then my accusing you of fallacy does nothing more than show that I am incapable of seeing an issue from more than one perspective.
When people begin toss accusations of fallacy at people simply for having different opinions, while turning a blind eye to faults of friends, they are not engaged in reasoning. They are simply engaged in name calling and insults.
My conclusion is that one should engage in the study of fallacy primarily to improve one's own reasoning ability. For that matter, one should not engage in the study of fallacy before developing an appreciation of Sound Rational Thinking. After all, using accusations of fallacy as a rhetorical trick is often nothing more than a sophisticated means of name calling and insults.
In my opinion, the primary reason for studying fallacies is to improve one's own reasoning abilities. When people accidentally make a fallacy in their system of reasoning, they end up with contradictions that undermine their efforts.
My observation is that the accusation of fallacy comes off poorly in argumentation.
I believe that classical thinkers got it right when they made a firm distinction between logic and rhetoric. We use logic to make sure our ideas are sound. We engage in rhetoric to express our ideas.
As people are instinctively competitive, it is natural to desire a bag of rhetorical tricks that can trip up one's opponents. Since the discovery of a fallacy in a system of reasoning can be devastating, it is tempting to use the accusation of fallacy as a rhetorical trick.
My observation is that such tricks rarely work in practice. More often than not the person making the accusation of fallacy comes off as small minded.
In a surprisingly large number of cases, the person quick to use accusations of fallacy as a rhetorical trick is wrong in their analysis of the fallacy.
For example, if you think such and such while I think so and so and I accuse you of a fallacy because such and such is logically incompatible with so and so; then my accusation of fallacy simply shows my ignorance of logic. Our argument about such and such v. so and so will be rife with contradictions simply because such and such and so and so are logically at odds.
If you look at the text of any substantive argument; you will find the text full of contradictory statements simply because there was a substantive disagreement. Person A says "X is True." Person B say "X is False." The transcript of the argument has the contradiction saying A is true and false.
The proper use of logic can help in a dispute in clarifying points. For example, if we agree on points A and B but disagree on point C, then your pointing out that my version of point C logically contradicts point A; then you've got something. For example, if two US Representatives are arguing about a law and Representative A points out that the proposal by Representative B violates the accepted understanding of the Constitution, then Representative A made a substantial blow against the opposition's argument.
In the political realm, a candidate might make inroads against the opposition candidate by pointing out logical fallacies. The gains are tenuous. The presence of a large number of fallacies in a candidates writing might show that the candidate is not authentically engaged in the reasoning process. This is especially true when one finds a candidate changing positions on a issue for the audience. A candidate who is pro-choice when speaking at a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on Monday, then pro-life at a church fundraiser on Tuesday can be proven a rogue by comparing the speeches.
If you find a person is intentionally using fallacies, misinformation or other negative tricks to fool people; then you do the world a favor by pointing out the dirty tricks to the people being tricked. Pointing out misinformation given by others can help people avoid mistakes. Finding logical errors in the works of errors does not mean that one's personal philosophy must be better. Popper did an eloquent job showing errors in the works of Plato, Hegel and Russell, yet that does not mean Popper's world view is any better.
The accusation of fallacy might show weakness in the opponent's reasoning. It rarely changes mass opinions on a topic. In some cases it shows weakness in the accuser's ability to reason.
If I hold premise A, and you hold premise B and the two premises are at odds with each other, then my accusing you of fallacy does nothing more than show that I am incapable of seeing an issue from more than one perspective.
When people begin toss accusations of fallacy at people simply for having different opinions, while turning a blind eye to faults of friends, they are not engaged in reasoning. They are simply engaged in name calling and insults.
My conclusion is that one should engage in the study of fallacy primarily to improve one's own reasoning ability. For that matter, one should not engage in the study of fallacy before developing an appreciation of Sound Rational Thinking. After all, using accusations of fallacy as a rhetorical trick is often nothing more than a sophisticated means of name calling and insults.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Math and Logic
Just a weird observation: The goal of many modern academicians is to deemphasize logic and to to create mathematical models to represent their field of study. Professors seek to reduce their field of study to mathematics.
In contrast, the goal of modern mathematicians (Frege, Russell, Gödel, etc.) is to reduce mathematics to logic.
In contrast, the goal of modern mathematicians (Frege, Russell, Gödel, etc.) is to reduce mathematics to logic.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Platonic Forms
Plato was a superb mathematician. In mathematics (especially in geometry) you can imagine abstract shapes with extremely well defined properties. One amazing thing about mathematics is that you can approach the subject from a large number of different perspectives and come back to many of the same forms. So, if you started math by studying numbers, you would discover many of the same things that you would have discovered if you started with geometry.
Needless to say, mathematics leads itself easily to logical analysis as Euclid would later demonstrate.
It is possible that Plato thought he would be able to find the same type of well defined forms in matters of ethics and political theory. His version of the Socratic dialogues seemed to be aiming at finding universal definitions of ethical issues.
The problem, of course, is that, when people engage in Socratic like dialogues, they can come up with all sorts of bizarre definitions for ethical terms. For example, a state of peace would happen after I kill all of my enemies. Therefore, my killing my enemies is an act of peace. (Many of the modern groups claiming Peace and Social Justice have very bizarre definitions of peace and social justice).
Here is what I see: When you do free form open enquiry about mathematics, you keep coming back to the same forms. When you do open enquiry about matters of ethics, you end up with a bunch of disparate and conflicting definitions.
From this observation, I would say that people can be loosy goosy in the logic they use when studying math, but that people need to be more disciplined in their study of ethics, politics and legal matters. For diplomacy to work, there must be a concerted effort to make sure that people are using the same definitions.
When mathematicians use different definitions, it generally becomes obvious because people keep coming back to the same basic Platonic forms.
Mathematics is bizarre. It is a subject that benefits when people engage in totally free form open enquiry. It is a subject that benefits when people run off into a corner and create a new language to describe the subject. What happens is that this open enquiry comes back to the same basic forms. The people creating a new language for math sometimes uncover things that the last language missed.
The same free form open enquiry does not work in politics. When the political class use different definitions, they end up creating a warring divisive society.
Politics, ethics and many areas of physical science require much more discipline than mathematics.
What is interesting about the modern era is that the intellectuals came up with needlessly terse method of talking about mathematics called symbolic logic, and they ripped the study of informal logic from the classroom.
Needless to say, mathematics leads itself easily to logical analysis as Euclid would later demonstrate.
It is possible that Plato thought he would be able to find the same type of well defined forms in matters of ethics and political theory. His version of the Socratic dialogues seemed to be aiming at finding universal definitions of ethical issues.
The problem, of course, is that, when people engage in Socratic like dialogues, they can come up with all sorts of bizarre definitions for ethical terms. For example, a state of peace would happen after I kill all of my enemies. Therefore, my killing my enemies is an act of peace. (Many of the modern groups claiming Peace and Social Justice have very bizarre definitions of peace and social justice).
Here is what I see: When you do free form open enquiry about mathematics, you keep coming back to the same forms. When you do open enquiry about matters of ethics, you end up with a bunch of disparate and conflicting definitions.
From this observation, I would say that people can be loosy goosy in the logic they use when studying math, but that people need to be more disciplined in their study of ethics, politics and legal matters. For diplomacy to work, there must be a concerted effort to make sure that people are using the same definitions.
When mathematicians use different definitions, it generally becomes obvious because people keep coming back to the same basic Platonic forms.
Mathematics is bizarre. It is a subject that benefits when people engage in totally free form open enquiry. It is a subject that benefits when people run off into a corner and create a new language to describe the subject. What happens is that this open enquiry comes back to the same basic forms. The people creating a new language for math sometimes uncover things that the last language missed.
The same free form open enquiry does not work in politics. When the political class use different definitions, they end up creating a warring divisive society.
Politics, ethics and many areas of physical science require much more discipline than mathematics.
What is interesting about the modern era is that the intellectuals came up with needlessly terse method of talking about mathematics called symbolic logic, and they ripped the study of informal logic from the classroom.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Guilt by Association
I was recently in a debate about whether or not the media should be reporting on associates of presidential candidates.
Most people seem to hold the gut feeling that the associations of presidential candidates is fair game for media scrutiny; However the idea of judging a candidate based on the company they keep seems to be a violation of the principle of Freedom of Association.
My take on the issues was as follows:
The term "Freedom of Association" is a place holder for a statement similar to "The State should not judge an individual for their association."
The statement "An individual should not judge a political candidate for their associations" is a logically independent statement.
The relation is a little bit like the logical converse. P → Q (P implies Q) is logically independent of its converse Q ← P (Q implies P). A triangle is a polygon does not mean that a polygon is a triangle.
One of the most fundamental mistakes of reason is to assume that the converse of a statement is true. The converse may be true. However, since it is logically independent, it must be analyzed independently.
My next observation was that, since political candidates often appoint their associates to positions of power, then it is critical for the media to examine the associates of a candidate.
I have noticed that whenever the press questions a candidate about their associations, their minions run around crying that their opponents are playing foul and trying their candidate by "guilt through association."
These cries ring hollow to me.
An election is something completely different from a criminal trial. A criminal trial has the goal of punishing criminals for their misdeeds. In a criminal trial, the court is considering a negative action against an individual.
An election is a decision about the direction a group wishes to follow. It is an inherently possitive thing. In an election, the people are weighing the good and bad things that might happen when the candidate is in power.
Trying to apply the standards of a criminal trial to a political campaign is absurd because they are logically different actions.
Anyway, after our discussion I helped pen a blog post on Freedom of Association.
Most people seem to hold the gut feeling that the associations of presidential candidates is fair game for media scrutiny; However the idea of judging a candidate based on the company they keep seems to be a violation of the principle of Freedom of Association.
My take on the issues was as follows:
The term "Freedom of Association" is a place holder for a statement similar to "The State should not judge an individual for their association."
The statement "An individual should not judge a political candidate for their associations" is a logically independent statement.
The relation is a little bit like the logical converse. P → Q (P implies Q) is logically independent of its converse Q ← P (Q implies P). A triangle is a polygon does not mean that a polygon is a triangle.
One of the most fundamental mistakes of reason is to assume that the converse of a statement is true. The converse may be true. However, since it is logically independent, it must be analyzed independently.
My next observation was that, since political candidates often appoint their associates to positions of power, then it is critical for the media to examine the associates of a candidate.
I have noticed that whenever the press questions a candidate about their associations, their minions run around crying that their opponents are playing foul and trying their candidate by "guilt through association."
These cries ring hollow to me.
An election is something completely different from a criminal trial. A criminal trial has the goal of punishing criminals for their misdeeds. In a criminal trial, the court is considering a negative action against an individual.
An election is a decision about the direction a group wishes to follow. It is an inherently possitive thing. In an election, the people are weighing the good and bad things that might happen when the candidate is in power.
Trying to apply the standards of a criminal trial to a political campaign is absurd because they are logically different actions.
Anyway, after our discussion I helped pen a blog post on Freedom of Association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)