The enormous value of being logically wrong

One of the things that really bothers me about the modern world is that a lot of people seem not to know how to read or to think.

Let me be clear: I am not talking about the basic ability to read and understand words on a page, or to string two ideas together.

Rather, I mean the ability to read and think analytically. It is this which I believe is widely lacking and which I’d love to see addressed. If nothing else, I think this would go a long way to improving the nature of dialogue and discussion on the internet.

Unfortunately, since these subjects are not taught in our educational system (or at least weren’t when I was a participant), the average person has not learned them from an early age and is not going to pick them up casually. Furthermore, since the same average person doesn’t know what these things entail, they do not even realize that they are lacking in this area.

Take, for example, the concept of a ‘logical argument’.

Most people, I am sure, think that a logical argument is one that uses ‘logic’. As to what logic is, they imagine it is something like ‘facts’ or ‘common sense’, as opposed to ‘emotion’.

Indeed I would go as far to say that their concept of logic derives largely from Star Trek and the sayings of Mr Spock, where the opposite of ‘logic’ is ‘feelings’. Thus according to Spock, “Humans make illogical decisions”, by which he means ‘decisions based on feelings, not facts’.

It may therefore comes as a surprise — perhaps even a shock — to discover that a logical argument can lead to a false conclusion, not because there is something wrong with ‘logic’ but because logic is entirely about the structure of arguments not the content.

Take, for example, the following:

All hydrogen atoms contain one electron.
This is a hydrogen atom.
Therefore it contains one electron.

All Conservatives are stupid.
John is a Conservative.
Therefore he is stupid.

All cats have horns.
This is a cat.
Therefore it has horns.

What most peope won’t realize is that these are all logically valid arguments, despite the fact that the second is contentious and the third just plain daft.

Thus one can use a logical argument to reach an entirely unhelpful, but nevertheless logical, conclusion. It was realizing this, however, that first helped me understand the nature and the power of logic.

Understanding that ‘logical’ was not the opposite of ‘emotional’ was the first step on the road to understanding arguments that did and didn’t work.

Please give a full name and location when posting. Comments without this information may be deleted. Recommend: