<-Concerning Freedom of Speech and Homophobes |Main|"Out of Time" or "Now, That's Much Better"->

Logic Should Bring Us Together

November 5, 2007 3:36 AM

lthough my opinions might sometimes suggest otherwise, our world is not black and white. I cannot accept that two political parties perfectly represent the views of the 300 million individual Americans. In fact, I'm not even sure that the Republicans and the Democrats do a good enough job of representing the views of the majority of the citizens. I know that neither perfectly represents my views, at the very least. So why is our country divided so clearly and bitterly? I'm not really sure, but I do know this: regardless of who's to blame, it's up to individuals to fix the problem.

Nothing frustrates me more than when people refuse to accept that another person's opinion is valid, even if it's wrong. I'm not talking about people like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, or Bill O'Reilly--those people are clearly bat-shit crazy. So, by the way, are people like Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, and Sam Seder. We shouldn't let any of those people shape our discourse--at best, they should bring new issues, ideas, and arguments to our attention.

Frankly, I'm saddened when I look at my country and see that it's split so clearly and bitterly in half. And I'm reminded of two things I learned while I was an undergrad.

The first is the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. A valid argument is one such that, if the premesis are true, then the conclusion must be true. The argument "It is Tuesday, therefore tomorrow is Wednesday" is valid because, if it is Tuesday, then tomorrow must be Wednesday. Validity does not depend on the actual truth of the statements. Therefore, the above argument is valid regardless of whether you make it on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Saturday.

A sound argument, on the other hand, is a valid argument where all of the premises--and therefore the conclusion--are, in fact, true. If you argue that "it is Tuesday, therefore tomorrow is Wednesday" on a Tuesday, then you are making a sound argument.

The nomenclature is unimportant; what really matters is that we remember that someone can have a valid opinion that is unsound. In other words, someone can have an opinion that makes complete internal sense but that doesn't jive with some fact in the real world. Where that fact is easily determinable, then the argument is--hopefully--moot. But where the fact is not so easily demonstrated, then the debate rages on. The best example I can think of is the debate over whether the Constitution should protect abortion. Although it's a complicated issue, it seems to come down to when you personally believe life begins. Unfortunately, that's not an easily answered question, and so there is disagreement. But that entire long-lived disagreement comes down to a very small point of contention. More importantly, each position is valid. If some small collection of cells cannot correctly be called a life, then it seems--to me--that abortion is just fine. If, on the other hand, that same collection of cells can correctly be called a person worthy of legal protections, then it seems--to me--that there are some significant issues with abortion. Certainly, the issue is much, much more complicated than that, but my point is this: we must do our best to see our opponent's side. We must try our hardest to understand their argument. We must dedicate ourselves to seeing how they reach the conclusions they reach. The goal is not to change our mind or theirs, but rather to gain an understanding and, hopefully, a respect for their opinion. That seems, to me, to be the prerequisite to resolving our political conflicts.

The second thing I'm reminded of is that you must be charitable to a person's argument. The majority of the philosophers I studied--people like Socrates, Kant, Wittgenstein, Descartes, or Hume--wrote either in a completely different language or in an antiquated form of English. Their work, therefore, was often hard to understand not only because of the concepts at play but because of the (sometimes intentional) use of obfuscatory writing. But philosophy is not a game of writing, people, or rhetoric; rather, it is a game of ideas. You cannot argue against the Theory of the Forms by showing that Plato explained it poorly. By the same token, you cannot argue against Kant's idea that all lying--regardless of purpose or scope--is wrong by showing that Kant himself lied on several occasions. In other words, you must work with the best possible argument that is consistent with the author's writing. If you can find a flaw with the ideal argument, then you've found a real flaw in the idea--and that's a true accomplishment. In other words, a good discourse should involve attacks on good arguments, not attacks on people.

One of the many posters in the law school's hallways said something to the effect that the majority of pro-life advocates were men, 100 percent of who would never risk getting pregnant. The assertions that pro-life advocates aim to oppress women or that the majority of them simply do not understand the issues involved--or are simply not qualified to voice an opinion--are themselves interesting and worthy of discussion. However, they have no direct relevance to the issue of whether abortion should be legal. We must deal with valid arguments, regardless of whether a radical feminist or a radical mysoginist articulates them.

I guess my ultimate point is that we will very rarely meet someone who holds a completely invalid opinion. The vast majority of the time, we meet people we disagree with and who's arguments have simply failed to convince us. But that doesn't make the person stupid, the argument invalide, or the discussion moot.

Ultimately, I don't think it's the disagreements that are tearing us apart, but rather the form the discussion has taken.



4 Comments


tRJ said:

Well said, Ismael. Not recognizing that another argument is valid (even if we completely disagree with it) is a recipe for an unproductive discussion. It's crucial to respect your opponent, even as you argue the merits of their position.

I think that's a big part of the problem. Too many people genuinely do not respect the intellect of their opponents. It's too easy to write them off as stupid or crazy. We have to be mindful of the fact that, as reasoned as our position is, in most cases, the opposite position can be just as reasoned. The difference often comes down to beginning assumptions (as with your example on abortion, on which you are completely correct).

For my part, I strive to keep my arguments on point, and out of the personal realm. And I am learning to avoid people who won't do the same.

November 5, 2007 9:13 AM



TheExpat said:

Well said by poster and above commenter alike

November 8, 2007 8:17 AM



Lily said:

When I look around, I don't see a lot of arguments running on logic, and those that do pass as logic in one arena would be considered fallacy in others. Obviously, you've studied more logic than I have, but my impression from studying formal logic is that it seems to be a lot of hot air and isn't that useful of a tool for real-world argumentation, because people disagree on how much an individual premise matters.

Let's take your abortion example, for instance. You say that the argument boils down to the truth of when life begins. I couldn't disagree more. In the moral or legal policy of abortion, in practice, the question of when life begins doesn't matter one whit. I know I couldn't give a shit when life begins. I refuse to be an incubator or to have another person's body in me when I don't want it to be. And in practice, you'd find most people put in the position of having to decide probably don't really care that much, either. They either want and are willing to take on the responsibility and pain of pregnancy, or they aren't. I couldn't give a damn what a man has to say about it. It's probably not logical, but it's human, and it's not going to change.

Criticisms of ad-hominem arguments, are, I think, misguided. People matter. They make a difference in our moral conscience and in the vast number of things we may never know, their best judgment, however much it may fly in the face of logic, is sometimes the best we can do. Ad hominem attacks do make some sense. You don't trust a child molester who says little girls benefit from sexual stimulation, even if he is a world-renowned psychologist. Personal interest can taint any source. Logic would do well to remember that!

Yes, I'm aware this isn't the most thorough argument, that it's not well-written, and that it's probably triggered mainly by the abortion word. But I still think it.


UGH! And I hate, hate, hate, when people try to make you believe the things they say when they try to get you to agree, point by point with their premise. So annoying--again, failing to consider how MUCH something matters.

November 11, 2007 3:40 PM



Ismael Tapia II said:

Lily,
You're certainly correct to point out that systems of formal logic have failings, but that doesn't mean that they're worthless as tools to evaluate or create convining arguments. While formal logic isn't the whole story, I think it's important as a foundation.

You're also correct in pointing out that logic doesn't directly address the issue of which premises are most important. I submit, however, that instances in which it seems that the disagreement comes down to the weight placed on the different premises actually boils down to disagreement about whether an argument is valid to begin with. The abortion argument I discussed, for example, boils down to a very simple conditional: if life begins at conception, then abortion is wrong and should be illegal. That argument places a great deal of weight on the issue of whether and when a fetus becomes a person. Your counterargument can be thought of as something like this: a woman's right to choose the destiny of her own body is absolute, so abortion must be legal. (These are simplified versions of both arguments--there are a lot of premises that sort of go unspoken, like that human life should be protected in the former and that human autonomy should be protected in the latter.)

Yes, you weigh one factor differently, but that's not a fault of formal logic. Rather, it's a difference of opinion about premises. In other words, it's the beginning of a discussion. We can then start to analyze these two contradictory arguments in detail, perhaps by beginning to consider their logical implications. My point, though, is that, even if logic doesn't directly give more weight to one premise over another, we can still accomodate that reality in the system and, more importantly, have a civil discussion.

I must disagree, however, about ad hominem attacks. I think that they serve no useful function in intelligent discourse but, rather, serve to mire the discussion in tangential nonsense. Ron Paul is a crazy fuck, but some of his arguments against, for example, the Patriot Act, are compelling. We shouldn't reject good ideas or criticisms simply because they come from someone we don't like or don't trust.

Rejecting ad hominem attacks, however, does not mean that we stop looking at who's making the arguments. People can be unreliable and self-serving. If some child psychologist advanced the theory that children benefit from being sexually molested, then the first thing we should do is examine the data and the methodology. And, of course, we should also consider the source. In the unimaginable situation that the psychologist was correct, we shouldn't ignore the conclusions simply because we don't like the messenger. We don't accomplish anything by defeating men while ignoring ideas.

November 15, 2007 3:17 AM



Leave a comment