Thursday, February 13, 2014

Logic



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