Introduction

Welcome to Tim Harding’s blog of writings and talks about logic, rationality, philosophy and skepticism. There are also some reblogs of some of Tim’s favourite posts by other writers, plus some of his favourite quotations and videos.  This blog has a Facebook connection at The Logical Place.

There are over 2,600 posts here about all sorts of topics – please have a good look around before leaving.

If you are looking for an article about Skepticism, Science and Scientism published in The Skeptic magazine titled ”A Step Too Far?’, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about the Birth of Experimental Science published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Out of the Dark’, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about the Dark Ages published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘In the Dark’, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about the Traditional Chinese Medicine vs. Endangered Species published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Bad Medicine’, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about the rejection of expertise published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Who needs to Know?’, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about Charles Darwin published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Darwin’s Missing Link“, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about the Astronomical Renaissance published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Rebirth of the Universe‘, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about DNA and GM foods published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘The Good Oil‘, it is available here.

If you are looking for an article about animal welfare published in The Skeptic magazine titled ‘Creature Features‘, it is available here.

If you would like to submit a comment about anything written here, please read our comments policy.

Follow me on Academia.edu

Copyright notice: © All rights reserved. Except for personal use or as permitted under the Australian Copyright Act, no part of this website may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, communicated or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission (except as an authorised reblog). All inquiries should be made to the copyright owner, Tim Harding at tim.harding@yandoo.com, or as attributed on individual blog posts.

If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us.

What is logic?

The word ‘logic‘ is not easy to define, because it has slightly different meanings in various applications ranging from philosophy, to mathematics to computer science. In philosophy, logic determines the principles of correct reasoning. It’s a systematic method of evaluating arguments and reasoning, aiming to distinguish good (valid and sound) reasoning from bad (invalid or unsound) reasoning.

The essential difference between informal logic and formal logic is that informal logic uses natural language, whereas formal logic (also known as symbolic logic) is more complex and uses mathematical symbols to overcome the frequent ambiguity or imprecision of natural language. Reason is the application of logic to actual premises, with a view to drawing valid or sound conclusions. Logic is the rules to be followed, independently of particular premises, or in other words using abstract premises designated by letters such as P and Q.

So what is an argument? In everyday life, we use the word ‘argument’ to mean a verbal dispute or disagreement (which is actually a clash between two or more arguments put forward by different people). This is not the way this word is usually used in philosophical logic, where arguments are those statements a person makes in the attempt to convince someone of something, or present reasons for accepting a given conclusion. In this sense, an argument consist of statements or propositions, called its premises, from which a conclusion is claimed to follow (in the case of a deductive argument) or be inferred (in the case of an inductive argument). Deductive conclusions usually begin with a word like ‘therefore’, ‘thus’, ‘so’ or ‘it follows that’.

A good argument is one that has two virtues: good form and all true premises. Arguments can be either deductive, inductive  or abductive. A deductive argument with valid form and true premises is said to be sound. An inductive argument based on strong evidence is said to be cogent. The term ‘good argument’ covers all three of these types of arguments.

Deductive arguments

A valid argument is a deductive argument where the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, because of the logical structure of the argument. That is, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Conversely, an invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, the validity or invalidity of arguments must be clearly distinguished from the truth or falsity of its premises. It is possible for the conclusion of a valid argument to be true, even though one or more of its premises are false. For example, consider the following argument:

Premise 1: Napoleon was German
Premise 2: All Germans are Europeans
Conclusion: Therefore, Napoleon was European

The conclusion that Napoleon was European is true, even though Premise 1 is false. This argument is valid because of its logical structure, not because its premises and conclusion are all true (which they are not). Even if the premises and conclusion were all true, it wouldn’t necessarily mean that the argument was valid. If an argument has true premises and its form is valid, then its conclusion must be true.

Deductive logic is essentially about consistency. The rules of logic are not arbitrary, like the rules for a game of chess. They exist to avoid internal contradictions within an argument. For example, if we have an argument with the following premises:

Premise 1: Napoleon was either German or French
Premise 2: Napoleon was not German

The conclusion cannot logically be “Therefore, Napoleon was German” because that would directly contradict Premise 2. So the logical conclusion can only be: “Therefore, Napoleon was French”, not because we know that it happens to be true, but because it is the only possible conclusion if both the premises are true. This is admittedly a simple and self-evident example, but similar reasoning applies to more complex arguments where the rules of logic are not so self-evident. In summary, the rules of logic exist because breaking the rules would entail internal contradictions within the argument.

Inductive arguments

An inductive argument is one where the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a sound deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the conclusion of a cogent inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given. Here’s a classic example of an inductive argument:

1. Premise: Every time you’ve eaten peanuts, you’ve had an allergic reaction.
2. Conclusion: You are likely allergic to peanuts.

In this example, the specific observations are instances of eating peanuts and having allergic reactions. From these observations, you generalize that you are probably allergic to peanuts. The conclusion is not certain, but if the premise is true (i.e., every time you’ve eaten peanuts, you’ve had an allergic reaction), then the conclusion is likely to be true as well.

Whilst an inductive argument based on strong evidence can be cogent, there is some dispute amongst philosophers as to the reliability of induction as a scientific method. For example, by the problem of induction, no number of confirming observations can verify a universal generalization, such as ‘All swans are white’, yet it is logically possible to falsify it by observing a single black swan.

Abductive arguments

Abduction may be described as an “inference to the best explanation”, and whilst not as reliable as deduction or induction, it can still be a useful form of reasoning. For example, a typical abductive reasoning process used by doctors in diagnosis might be: “this set of symptoms could be caused by illnesses X, Y or Z. If I ask some more questions or conduct some tests I can rule out X and Y, so it must be Z.

Incidentally, the doctor is the one who is doing the abduction here, not the patient. By accepting the doctor’s diagnosis, the patient is using inductive reasoning that the doctor has a sufficiently high probability of being right that it is rational to accept the diagnosis. This is actually an acceptable form of the Argument from Authority (only the deductive form is fallacious).

References:

Hodges, W. (1977) Logic – an introduction to elementary logic (2nd ed. 2001) Penguin, London.
Lemmon, E.J. (1987) Beginning Logic. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis.

If you find the information on this blog useful, you might like to consider supporting us.

Reasoning

Rationality may be defined as as the quality of being consistent with or using reason, which is further defined as the mental ability to draw inferences or conclusions from premises (the ‘if – then’ connection). The application of reason is known as reasoning; the main categories of which are deductive and inductive reasoning. A deductive argument with valid form and true premises is said to be sound. An inductive argument based on strong evidence is said to be cogent. It is rational to accept the conclusions of arguments that are sound or cogent, unless and until they are effectively refuted.

A fallacy is an error of reasoning resulting in a misconception or false conclusion. A fallacious argument can be deductively invalid or one that has insufficient inductive strength. A deductively invalid argument is one where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. That is , the conclusion can be false even if the premises are true. An example of an inductively invalid argument is a conclusion that smoking does not cause cancer based on the anecdotal evidence of only one healthy smoker.

By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). By definition, a belief arising from a logical fallacy is contrary to reason and is therefore irrational, even though a small number of such beliefs might possibly be true by coincidence.

Captain Corelli’s Mandolin

Captain Corelli’s Mandolin by Louis de Bernières (1994)

Dark Star

Dark Star, Elon Musk’s Dangerous Turn (2024) by Richard Cooke

Wealth is not necessarily greed

By ChatGPT-4

Wealth itself is not inherently a sign of greed. The distinction between simply having wealth and being greedy often lies in the manner in which wealth is accumulated, used, and perceived. Here are some key factors that differentiate wealth from greed:

1. Means of Acquisition: Wealth obtained through honest, ethical means and hard work is not typically considered a product of greed. In contrast, greed is often associated with wealth accumulated through dishonesty, exploitation, or manipulation.
2. Attitude Towards Wealth: If a person views wealth as a tool for positive impact, such as through philanthropy, community support, or fostering social development, it is less likely to be seen as greed. Greed is more about an insatiable desire for more wealth, often for personal gain alone.
3. Use of Wealth: The use of wealth plays a significant role. A wealthy individual who uses their resources responsibly, supports charitable causes, invests in community growth, or helps others in need is typically not viewed as greedy. Greed is often linked to hoarding wealth or spending it in excessively extravagant ways that serve only personal vanity or pleasure.
4. Impact on Others: Wealth that is used in ways that benefit society, improve lives, or contribute to the common good is usually not seen as a product of greed. In contrast, greed often involves ignoring the needs or wellbeing of others in the pursuit of personal wealth.
5. Contentment and Perspective: A key aspect is the level of contentment. People who are wealthy but content with what they have, showing no obsessive desire for more, are generally not considered greedy. Greed is characterized by a constant and excessive dissatisfaction with one’s current level of wealth.
6. Balance in Life: Maintaining a balance between the pursuit of wealth and other life aspects, such as family, relationships, and personal growth, can be an indicator of wealth without greed. Greedy individuals often prioritize wealth accumulation over all other aspects of their life.

In essence, it’s not the presence of wealth itself but the relationship with it and the behaviors surrounding its accumulation and use that determine whether it’s associated with greed. Wealth can coexist with generosity, ethical values, and a sense of social responsibility, thus distinguishing it from greed.

The uselessness of cynicism

By Tim Harding and ChatGPT-4

Contemporary cynicism has quite a different meaning from the Classical Greek school of philosophical thought of that name. The modern meaning is an attitude of distrust toward claimed ethical and social values and a rejection of the need to be socially involved.

Nowadays cynicism, often mistaken for a wise and pragmatic worldview, can paradoxically become a self-defeating and unproductive attitude. At its core, cynicism is characterized by a general suspicion of others’ motives, believing that people are primarily motivated by self-interest. While it might seem like a protective mechanism or a sign of intellectual sophistication, cynicism can lead to several negative consequences, both for individuals and society.

Firstly, cynicism fosters a sense of helplessness and passivity. By assuming the worst in people and situations, cynics often feel that any effort to effect change is futile. This mindset can lead to a lack of engagement with important social, political, and environmental issues. When individuals adopt a cynical attitude, they are less likely to participate in community activities, vote, or engage in discussions that could lead to positive change. The collective impact of widespread cynicism can be a society that is less active, less democratic, and more apathetic towards critical issues.

Secondly, cynicism can hinder personal and professional relationships. Human connections thrive on trust, empathy, and mutual respect. A cynical approach to relationships, characterized by suspicion and a lack of trust, can erode the foundations necessary for strong, healthy relationships. In the workplace, this can manifest as a lack of teamwork and cooperation, stifling creativity and productivity. In personal relationships, it can lead to isolation and loneliness, as others may find it challenging to connect with someone who consistently doubts their intentions.

Furthermore, cynicism can be detrimental to one’s mental health. A persistent negative outlook on life can lead to increased stress, anxiety, and depression. The belief that nothing will ever improve or that all people are inherently selfish can create a sense of hopelessness, impacting an individual’s overall well-being and quality of life.

It’s important to differentiate cynicism from skepticism and critical thinking. Skepticism is a more philosophical and neutral stance where one questions or doubts accepted opinions, beliefs, or claims. Skeptics do not necessarily believe that people are inherently deceitful or self-interested; rather, they require sufficient evidence or reasoning before accepting a claim as true. Skepticism is often seen as a critical thinking tool, encouraging inquiry and the suspension of judgment in the absence of adequate evidence. Critical thinking involves analyzing and evaluating an idea or a situation to form a reasoned judgment. It is constructive, whereas cynicism is often destructively dismissive. Critical thinking leads to growth and improvement; cynicism often leads to stagnation.

In conclusion, while cynicism might appear as a shield against disappointment and deceit, it often becomes a barrier to personal growth, healthy relationships, and societal progress. Adopting a more balanced view, one that involves critical thinking but also an openness to the possibility of good in others and in situations, can lead to a more fulfilling, productive, and positive life experience. By overcoming cynicism, individuals can contribute to creating a more cooperative, trusting, and proactive society.

Invincible ignorance

“Invincible ignorance” refers to a state of ignorance that cannot be overcome because the individual has no way of accessing or understanding the necessary information. This concept is often discussed in moral and ethical contexts, particularly in philosophy and theology.

In these contexts, invincible ignorance is the lack of knowledge that is literally impossible for a person to obtain. This could be due to various factors such as cultural, geographical, or temporal barriers. For example, someone living in a remote part of the world without access to certain information cannot be blamed for not knowing it.

In moral theology, especially within the Catholic Church, the concept of invincible ignorance plays a significant role. It is believed that if a person is invincibly ignorant of the moral wrongness of an act, then their culpability for that act is diminished or even nullified. This is because moral responsibility is often linked to the knowledge and intent behind an action.

However, it’s important to distinguish invincible ignorance from “vincible ignorance,” which is ignorance that can be overcome but isn’t due to the individual’s lack of effort or willful avoidance of the truth. In moral discussions, vincible ignorance does not typically absolve an individual from responsibility in the same way invincible ignorance might.

Douglas Murray on the West

“Today the West faces challenges without and threats within. But no greater threat exists than that which comes from people inside the West intent on pulling apart the fabric of our societies, piece by piece. By assaulting the majority populations in these countries. By saying that our histories are entirely reprehensible and have nothing good to be said about them. By claiming that everything in our past that has led up to our present is irredeemably riddled with sin and that while these same sins have beset every society in history, the debtor should knock at only one door. And most importantly by those who pretend that a civilization that has given more to the world in knowledge, understanding, and culture than any other in history somehow has nothing whatsoever to be said for it.” 
― Douglas Murray, The War on the West

The Magna Carta fallacy

A man named Mr Glew claimed the City of Greater Geraldton could not lawfully make constituents pay rates, because local governments were not written in Australia’s constitution.

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey said the council’s actions were legal. “The State of WA has the power to enact legislation that sets up a system of local government, which includes the City of Greater Geraldton and other places,” she said.

Mr Glew said the city could not seize his land because he claimed it under Magna Carta. “It is not getting sold because I have it held under clause 61 of Magna Carta,” he said. “They cannot touch it, they fenced it — I threw the gates away, they put concrete blocks there — I threw them away, I blocked it. “I own it and I paid for it.”

Magna Carta was originally issued by King John of England in 1215 as a solution to a political crisis. Since then it has been one of the foundations of constitutional and parliamentary government for Britain and Commonwealth countries.

Professor Twomey said Magna Carta was an important historic statute but had little relevance in today’s society. “You have got to understand that under British law, their constitution is the system of parliamentary sovereignty and that means parliament itself can always change its own laws,” she said. “There is very little left of Magna Carta in the United Kingdom because many later laws have overridden and changed it from time to time.

“The same issue arises in Australia — Magna Carta became part of Australian law as a received British law … it would have been a much cut-down version of Magna Carta. “Only the little dribs and drabs that were left, and even those dribs and drabs they are not entrenched as part of our law they are just part of ordinary statute that can be changed by later statute.”

Douglas Murray on the destruction of the past

“This is the process by which everything from the past can be picked over, picked apart, and eventually destroyed. It can find no way of building. It can only find a way of endlessly pulling apart. So a novel by Jane Austen is taken apart until a delicate work of fiction is turned instead into nothing more than another piece of guilty residue from a discredited civilization. What has been achieved in this? Nothing but a process of destruction.” 
― Douglas Murray, The War on the West

Douglas Murray on popular culture

“To immerse oneself in popular culture for any length of time is to wallow in an almost unbearable shallowness. Was the sum of European endeavour and achievement really meant to culminate in this?” 
― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam

Douglas Murray on ISIS

‘Rather than being a ‘perversion’ of Islam, it is truer to say that the version of Islam espoused by ISIS, while undoubtedly the worst possible interpretation of Islam, and for Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere obviously the most destructive version of Islam, is nevertheless a plausible interpretation of Islam.’

Douglas Murray