February 28, 2003

• Leaping Logical Limitations!

  
  

  Wouldn't it be nice if everyone were logical and straightforward in their thinking?  Think how many wars could be averted, how many crises could be solved, how many new discoveries we'd see published, and how vast the improvement to our quality of life.  Why if only people would take the time to think things through step by step avoiding the contradictions and obfuscations that are the bane of logicians everwhere, life would be pretty near perfect?  Wouldn't it?

  
  

  I've seen several blogs recently bemoaning the fact that most people are illogical at best and criminally slip-shod by habit in their attempt to reason from problem to solution.  I have some considerable sympathy for this position.  I'm often frustrated by conversation with people who seem to live by the dictates of the Rule of Law - if the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; if both are against you, call the other side names.  Some of you may even have cause to believe that *I* operate in this fashion at least in regard to the first two precepts.  I like to "play devil's advocate" from time to time because arguing the other side helps me to see the weaknesses of my position, uncovers unanswered questions, and generally keeps me open to the truth that mine isn't the only Point of View. 

  
  

  I think that there are other people out there who value truth, logic and questioning as a path to understanding.  But, most of the time, even if I find them we eventually butt heads over some issue or another with both of us convinced that the other person is utterly lacking in reason.  It isn't because we don't both apply rules of logic to our discussion, it's because there are limits to the value of logic in leading to answers. 

  
  

  Logic works by comparing statements to determine which is true and which is false.  There are charts, graphs, memorizable lists of rules for rhetoric, and other devices which at least imply that if only all people would simpy utilize the tools available, argument could end and we'd all live in happy agreement.  But, the beginning point of any discussion is always a single premise.  There has to be a bedrock statement from which all others follow in order for the rules of logic to apply. 

  
  

  I like reading Philosophers.  They are an interesting group of people.  (Mostly nerds like myself.)  One of my favorites is George Santayana, mostly because he says the most outrageous things.  His Life of Reason is just filled with one great quote after another.  I'm going to pick on him for the next few moments.  (He's dead, so I doubt he'll care one way or the other.)  One section of his magnum opus deals with reason in religion.  Everything he says about religion he bases on a single premise, "Religion pursues rationality through the imagination."  Frankly, this premise is fraught with the possibility for abuse.  He never defines religion, rationality or imagination but immediately assumes that the reader knows exactly what he means by those terms.  He then goes on to build an argument which includes a series of statements such as: Religion assigns causes or explains events as an imaginative substitute for science.  The conditions and aims of life are both presented in religion poetically.  Poetry tends to arrogate to itself literal truth and moral authority neither of which it possesses.  The method of religion is to proceed by intuition and by unchecked poetical conceits.

  
  

  I doubt very much that Senor Santayana and I would ever be able to have a meaningful conversation, no matter how logical we each were, on the topic of religion.  His premises leave no room for such data as literal experience or reality as proper subjects for religious reason.  (Don't take my word for it, he says so himself two paragraphs down from the one I lifted the above quotes out of.)

  
  

  Santayana and I come from two mutally exclusive worldviews.  He is a thoroughgoing naturalist.  To his way of thinking Ulimate Reality is no more than the sum of material existence.  My worldview holds that there are phenomena which are inexplicable by natural processes alone.  Because we each view the other's basic assumptions as flawed, we are doomed from the outset. 

  
  

  Much of the recent discussion pointing out inadequacies of contemporary reasoning has been centered on the debate over the looming War with Iraq.  Various sides state their premises and argue from them with the conviction that anyone who fails to reach the same conclusion has used poor logic.  However, for the most part, I don't detect lack of reasoning ability so much as I see the arguments based on unprovable premises. 

  
  

  One side says, Sadam has weapons of mass destruction.  If the UN inspection team does not report on these weapons it is because Sadam is hiding them, deceiving the inspectors, or the inspectors are in collusion with him.  But do you see the problem here?  How do they KNOW that Sadam has these weapons?  No one argues that in the past he has possessed them.  But over the past twleve years, he claims to have destroyed them.  The UN inspection team has unanswered questions with regard to the methodology of the destruction and the adequacy of disposal, but they have no indication that the weapons continue to exist.

  
  

  The other side says, Sadam has destroyed his weapons of mass destruction.  If the UN inspection team does not report that the weapons exist, it is because they have done their job, verified the destruction, and confirmed that the weapons are gone.  This position ignores the fact that unanswered questions in regard to the methodology of destruction and adequacy of disposal remain.  It further relies heavily on the word of a man that no one, including his own people trusts.  The fact that he has lied in the past is not proof that statements he makes today are false, but it does suggest that we must use extreme caution in accepting his claim.

  
  

  Both sides are arguing from ignorance.  Neither has conclusive proof that their claim is true.  Both are arguing that because their premise cannot be proven false, it MUST be true.  This is no different than arguing that because no one has been able to prove that ghosts do not exists, ghosts MUST exist. 

  
  

  Argument that Sadam is evil is irrelevant to the logical problem of determining the status of his disarmament.  Pointing out his past crimes is not proof of his present noncompliance.  The suggestion that we have a moral responsibility to wage war on Iraq to remove Sadam from power because of the potential threat he poses to the region and to his own people does not address the logical problem at the root of the question.  Does or does not Sadam Hussein continue to possess weapons of mass destruction?

  
  

  Anti-war demonstrators may have a conviction that war is categorically evil and to be avoided at all costs.  It is possible to disagree with this view, but to call this view "illogical" implies that it is possible to prove that war is not a categorical evil.  If you want to try to prove that one - well, good luck.  In 4000 years of recorded history no one has yet come up with a "proof" one way or another on questions of the constitution of moral good, evil, or even if there is such a thing. 

  
  

  Logic is useful even essential to meaningful discussion and debate.  Logic however is limited by our ability to know and understand a single truth from which we may proceed.  No amount of reasoning ever produces a new truth, it merely tests a new truth claim against established criteria. 

  
  

  My two favorite works on Logic are Introduction to Logic by Irving M Copi which is a heavy book likely to damage any toe it's dropped upon, and Nonsense, How to Overcome It by Robert J Gula, a much less technical volume.

  
  

  PS - A second person I really like has recently ended his/her Xanga blog because of the nastiness that occurred when that person offered an opinion on the war question.  So if you are looking for my hidden agenda, it's that I really wish we could tone down the rhetoric here.  We are not each other's enemies.

  • 12:24 pm
  • 28 Comments