Every so often I have a problem
with logic[1].
My problem is people citing logic, without understanding logic. It has become
like a mantra: “Be logical,” “Logic tells us,” et cetera. Sadly, the people who do so say logic when
they mean “I think”, not necessarily acknowledging the other side except to
dismiss it out of hand.
So what then is logic? Logic is
nothing more than a tool. It is an aid to assist in finding the best solution
for a given problem. The simplest form of this is a basic if-then statement. If
your PIN is correct, then the ATM will grant access to your accounts. In some
cases this can be an oversimplification, but I’m ignoring that. I’m great that
way.
Before I go further, I will say I
am not fully versed in Logic. I don’t know all its listed pitfalls (called[2]
fallacies) save a few: Reductio ad
Hitlerum (reduced to Hitler) and Reductio
ad absurdum (reduced to absurdity). I don’t know its myriad of types and
forms. In fact you could probably fill a thimble with what I do know about it. There,
I’ve said it. Now accept me as an authority[3]
on the matter and lets keep going. Okay?
An example I once heard of a logic
problem presented to a computer. (I haven’t researched to see if this story is
true in any way, so take it with a grain of salt.) The computer was asked to
determine which was the better choice: a watch five minutes off, or a “broken”[4]
watch. The computer returned that the
broken watch was the correct choice as it was correct twice a day, whereas the
other was never correct. For me at least, this was the wrong answer. Strictly
speaking both watches are right all the time, just not necessarily where you’re
standing on the globe. I know that’s a quippy response, and I’m keeping it, but
it’s still true. So there has to be restrictions, or assumptions and givens[5],
to guide the decision and the course of logic. In this case it would be assumed
that the watches would be analog, as a broken digital watch would render the
argument moot. Assumed that we would only consider time related to one locale. It would be given that there are two watches.
This is getting verbose, and annoying. So moving on.
Anyway, the goal is to get the
argument as close to a black-and-white question, an either-or answer. Right or
wrong. On or off. In the watch question
the computer went for the best choice, which it (or the programmers) took to
mean the most correct. What happens, however, when the best choice is taken to
mean the one that serves the user most adequately. Then the answer would be
reversed; the right choice would be the watch that is five minutes off as it
would be consistent and the user would be able to tell the approximate time all
day. The broken watch, while still right twice a day, cannot tell the user when
it is right. So then which is the right choice, consistent or correct? I would
say consistent based off of usefulness alone.
So what does this rambling monologue have to do with my problem
with logic?[6] Basically,
uh… huh, I guess it’s not with logic, but the people claiming to use it and
demanding that you do too, all without themselves knowing how to use it. So come on people, be logical, learn to use
logic.[7]
[1] I
can hear the snarky remarks from here, thank you.
[2]
One in the same really, but reductio ad
hitlerum is a specific vein of reductio
ad absurdum. It boils down to, “if Hitler did it, it is evil.” i.e. – “Hitler
liked abstract art, therefore abstract art is Nazi art.”
[3]
This is probably an example of the fallacy of false authority or something.
[4] I
put broken in quotes, well, because we’re talking logic here and I wanted to
cover my bases as some people can be real sticklers for detail and wordplay. So
here we define broken as “non-functioning, but whole and intact; a drained
battery”.
[5] An
“assumption” is something that is not necessarily true, but will be treated as
such for the argument. A “given” is something that is true.
[6]
Again with the snarky comments! What’s WRONG with you? ;-)
[7]
See what I did there? I did something that ticks me off when other people do
it. Aren’t I delightfully hypocritical?
No comments:
Post a Comment