Irrefutable logic MY butt!

By Joseph Walther

I won’t bore you with subject-matter detail, but I was privy to two people engrossed in a heated debate last Friday. Between the two of them, they dropped the label, “irrefutable logic” seven times. As I listened—they knew that I was listening, too—both debaters appeared intellectually adept in matters logical.

“Logic” is a term used loosely by many people from myriad educational backgrounds. I’ve heard the phrase, “I AGREE with your logic,” used hundreds of times by many people over the course of my life. However, I’ve heard, “I DISAGREE with your logic,” even more.

We tend to have no problems with those who agree with us. It’s those who disagree that tend to drive us batty. In fact, this idea formed one of the fundamental motivations behind this BLOG’s title: The True Facts!

At best, whether you agree or disagree with people’s logic, you need to be careful when stating your own positions. As is often the case, many statements may be devoid of logic to begin with.

Consequently, agreeing or disagreeing has no meaning other than to point out that the one in agreement, or disagreement, is just as confused as the one who made the original statement. In other words, it often tends to boil down to the blind attempting to lead the blind.

Formal, legitimate logic is nothing more than an argument consisting of a list of statements called premises. Following the premises is a final statement called a conclusion.

However, the process is based on well established rules of formal logic, not to mention at least one, mostly overlooked, MAJOR assumption, the absolute truth of the stated premises.

We have to examine the conjunction of an argument’s premises. If the premises imply an argument’s conclusion, we deem the argument as valid. Of course, this is the way some stodgy old philosophy professor would say it.

A normal person, with a 3-digit IQ, would simply tell you that if all the premises are true, then the conclusion is true!

Most of the time, it isn’t the logic behind the premises that causes people to suspect the absolute validity of an argument’s conclusion. It’s a failure to acknowledge that MAJOR assumption… the one I mentioned above.

An argument’s conclusion may be perfectly valid. However, its validity does NOT guarantee the TRUTH of its premises. As such, neither can it guarantee the TRUTH of its conclusion.

Stated another way, it may be a perfectly logical true conclusion that is based on a huge pile of untrue bovine excrement.

Be careful! There are inherent flaws in declaring statements as “logical/illogical.” The most common one is the degree of emotional investment on the part of those doing the arguing.

The higher the degree of emotional investment, the more susceptible such people are to the unintended consequences of self-delusion.

At one point in our evolutionary history, people “knew” that the Earth was flat. They all “knew” that Earth was the center of the Universe. At various other points people “knew” other things that, thanks to today’s facts, WE know to have been “just plain stupid.”

Note, however, that this does not mean that our ancestors were stupid. It simply means that, based on the “scientific” premises of the times, they believed their conclusions to have been true.

Humans are highly susceptible to self-delusion. Pre-conceived notions often trump disproving facts. When people believe something to be true, unless contrary evidence is overwhelming, they will adjust the facts to fit their pre-conceived notions rather than revise them to fit the facts.

This applies to ALL humans without exception, scientists in particular. In fact, when scientists fall prey to this kind of behavior, the consequences can be devastating; which is why scientists should NOT guess.

Scientists who theorize BEFORE they have facts to back up their theories inevitably begin to revise the FACTS to fit their theories rather than revise their theories to fit the facts.

The one consolation, whenever scientists do this, is that scientific critical thinking eventually lays waste to the scientifically ridiculous. The problem, though, is that most non-scientists, at least the ones in this country, don’t DO science.

After all, there is math involved in this stuff! Right? At any rate, the sad fact that most non-scientists do NOT do science gives rise to an ever-increasing onslaught of episodes of scientific prostitution.

So, the next time you hear people talk about what is logical and what is not logical, ask them which assumptions, if any, they have made and whether they have independently validated the truth of their premises.

No matter which subject they’re speaking of, I’m betting two things. The first is that they have no idea what you’re talking about. The second is that their minds have already been made up and they’ll be in no mood to be confused with facts.

Tune in again next Sunday. I’ll be revealing more truths just as soon as I find out what they are.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.