logic! why don't they teach logic at these schools?
I was talking with a friend about a rule of thumb a minister at our church, Jim, formulated some years ago: "If you're not involved in a church, you're probably not growing spiritually."
Interesting statement, that: notice that it's about involvement, not mere attendance, and that he said "probably" rather than definitely — it's simply an observation that's based on experience with lots of people, and I generally think it's true, whatever your religion is.
My friend's first response was a retort to Jim's implication that going to church would make you grow spiritually. When I pointed out that Jim had made no such claim, and tried to show it by breaking it down into pure syllogistic logic, the conversation ended with my friend in tears. No kidding. The issues included: the merits of Jim's statement, the intelligence of my friend, the spiritual validity of my friend's choices, my own sloppy thinking. I was making no statement about any of these, of course, in discussing the logic of it: I was only clarifying that if I say "all p are q" then you can't criticize me for saying "all q are automatically p," which I haven't said at all.
One example I used: suppose I say you can only get food at this restaurant. If you don't eat at this restaurant, you'll go hungry. Now, I'm not at all saying that everyone who walks in will automatically be filled. You *could* sit in the restaurant and not eat at all. My claim only says what it says it says: that if you *don't* eat here, you *won't* eat.
Friend's response: but I take issue with the entire argument, because you can get food at lots of places! Not just at that restaurant!
Yep.
And I reiterate the conversation ended in tears. Folks, it is vitally important to know the rules of logic. When you know the meaning of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and how it applies to logic, you can cut through hours and hours of presidential campaigns, religious folderol, family squabbles, and just about anything else. Being able to reduce a line of thinking to its purely syllogistical form is a skill that brings much clarity. Plenty of people — my friend is an example — are wonderful folks, incredibly intelligent, spiritually alive, socially and interactively observant, humanly empathetic, far more skilled in many areas than I'll ever be, who could benefit from sitting down and studying the beauty of logic.
Eventually you get an easy familiarity with, say, the concept that an A proposition holds no existential import (something that would have not only helped my friend see my point but avoid tears), or the concepts of Boolean logic that start off seeming bovinely obvious but quickly escalate to serpentine subtlety (again, knowledge that would have been a boon in this conversation).
The crux of this issue, then, was a syllogistic one: Jim said "If not A then not B," and my friend got "if A then B" from it. Invalid. Some of the world's smartest people — my friend included — wouldn't see the flaw in that, but I did, not because I'm so dang special but because I've made a formal study of formal logic since I was about 11.
If what you say is important to me, then it's essential for me to know what you're saying when you say something. Some folks consider logic and emotion to be enemies. That's not just wrong; it's dangerous. Logical thinking makes the emotional life resonant and focused. Logic is, as is emotion, a handmaiden to love. Learn it! Live it!
Interesting statement, that: notice that it's about involvement, not mere attendance, and that he said "probably" rather than definitely — it's simply an observation that's based on experience with lots of people, and I generally think it's true, whatever your religion is.
My friend's first response was a retort to Jim's implication that going to church would make you grow spiritually. When I pointed out that Jim had made no such claim, and tried to show it by breaking it down into pure syllogistic logic, the conversation ended with my friend in tears. No kidding. The issues included: the merits of Jim's statement, the intelligence of my friend, the spiritual validity of my friend's choices, my own sloppy thinking. I was making no statement about any of these, of course, in discussing the logic of it: I was only clarifying that if I say "all p are q" then you can't criticize me for saying "all q are automatically p," which I haven't said at all.
One example I used: suppose I say you can only get food at this restaurant. If you don't eat at this restaurant, you'll go hungry. Now, I'm not at all saying that everyone who walks in will automatically be filled. You *could* sit in the restaurant and not eat at all. My claim only says what it says it says: that if you *don't* eat here, you *won't* eat.
Friend's response: but I take issue with the entire argument, because you can get food at lots of places! Not just at that restaurant!
Yep.
And I reiterate the conversation ended in tears. Folks, it is vitally important to know the rules of logic. When you know the meaning of post hoc ergo propter hoc, and how it applies to logic, you can cut through hours and hours of presidential campaigns, religious folderol, family squabbles, and just about anything else. Being able to reduce a line of thinking to its purely syllogistical form is a skill that brings much clarity. Plenty of people — my friend is an example — are wonderful folks, incredibly intelligent, spiritually alive, socially and interactively observant, humanly empathetic, far more skilled in many areas than I'll ever be, who could benefit from sitting down and studying the beauty of logic.
Eventually you get an easy familiarity with, say, the concept that an A proposition holds no existential import (something that would have not only helped my friend see my point but avoid tears), or the concepts of Boolean logic that start off seeming bovinely obvious but quickly escalate to serpentine subtlety (again, knowledge that would have been a boon in this conversation).
The crux of this issue, then, was a syllogistic one: Jim said "If not A then not B," and my friend got "if A then B" from it. Invalid. Some of the world's smartest people — my friend included — wouldn't see the flaw in that, but I did, not because I'm so dang special but because I've made a formal study of formal logic since I was about 11.
If what you say is important to me, then it's essential for me to know what you're saying when you say something. Some folks consider logic and emotion to be enemies. That's not just wrong; it's dangerous. Logical thinking makes the emotional life resonant and focused. Logic is, as is emotion, a handmaiden to love. Learn it! Live it!
Comments