Logic - 1

Let’s take a step back from faith and talk about something that we can all agree is a major component of critical thinking which is logic. 

Logic has been part of this discussion since it began.  Sometimes I talked about it as an element of an effective and successful argument (one in which conclusions follow logically from premises). I’ve also contrasted things that may or may not be a requisite for critical thinking (including imagination, emotion, and faith) to something that surely is (logic).  But what exactly do we mean when we talk of “logic?” 

The good news is that we do not need to fully answer this question and know everything about the answers in order to draw upon important logical concepts as needed as we analyze the upcoming Presidential election.  Like fallacies, logic consists of many different components and comes in many different flavors and an understanding of all of them is not required for some basic logical principles to help guide our thinking.

But we need to keep in mind that, unlike fallacies (which can be thought of as a long list of “broken” arguments, from which we are free to pick and choose which ones might be relevant for a particular argument or discussion) logic is a complete system (actually a set of systems).  In fact, fallacies are simply arguments that break the rules set up by one or more of these system.  So while we are free to use the tools of logic selectively to support a critical thinking exercise, if you want to go past the practical critical thinking project encouraged in this blog, a good first step would be a study of logic.

But what do we man when we talk about “studying logic?”  Two thousand, or one thousand or even one hundred years ago, the answer to that question was simple: studying the logical systems constructed and formalized by (surprise, surprise) Aristotle (i.e., “The Philosopher”). 

The notion that arguments can be written in specific syntax of statements such as “All A’s are B’s” “Some A’s are NOT B’s” and organized into sets of statements such as…

All A’s are B’s

All B’s are C’s;

Therefore all A’s are C’s

… (called a syllogism) is also derived from Aristotle’s formal logic which is part of “The Philosopher’s” complete logical system built into works referred to as “The Organon” (stop snickering out there).

Of course, the study of logic wasn’t set in amber 2400 years ago, but was developed, forgotten, rediscovered and supplemented over time.  The use of diagrams and illustrations (especially ones that could be reproduced using newfangled devices such as printing presses), helped create new ways of looking at logical statements and relationships that went beyond what ancient thinkers taught (or thought). 

The good news about formal logic is that one can become proficient at it by taking a single course on the subject (as I did years ago as an undergraduate), although one can dedicate one’s life to studying the topic deeply.  The bad news is that fewer and fewer people every get the chance to take such a course, despite the fact that an understanding of formal logic and rhetoric was once a requirement for being considered an educated person.

This is usually the point where some old timer chimes in about how much we’ve lost by giving up study of the classics in favor of “fad” topics such as sociology and quantum mechanics.  But this complaint misses two key points, namely:

* The reason classical subjects (like logic and Latin) are not taught today is that the explosion of knowledge brought about by the scientific revolution and modernity has created vast and exciting new topics to learn about and explore; but more importantly;

* There are other newer, heavily-mathematical, modern systems of logic (such as symbolic logic) that go way beyond what Aristotle ever dreamed of.  And in terms of sheer numbers, more people are taking classes in these modern logical systems than ever studied Aristotle’s creations (although study of these various logics – and their practical application – is more frequently referred to as “computer programming”)

These complex systems (and even large parts of the Aristotelian system) go way beyond what is needed to determine if a Presidential candidate has built his proposals on a strong logical foundation or a pile of sand. But it is worth looking at one modern logical system that is particularly relevant to something that formal and mathematical logic doesn’t always care about: normal human conversation.

Why Now?

In a sense, this is a long lead time to begin thinking about the 2012 US elections within the context of critical thinking (or any other context for that matter).

After all, we’re still months away from the actual election season. Yes, the Republican nomination race is on and both the campaigns and the news networks would like us to see our political passions (and contributions and viewership) pick up ever faster and ever earlier. But for most voters the real game begins once we know whose names will be on the ballot. But it is just during such a lull that a critical thinking analysis should begin.

For one thing, it allows us to introduce important critical thinking principles, techniques and ideas that will become useful later (such as cognitive biases, logic and fallacies, elements of rhetoric and argumentation, etc.) before they are applied to specific political speeches and campaign strategies. But it also allows us to begin political discussions before partisan passion overwhelms the possibility of critical discourse.

For it is during this period before the candidates are known and we voters are forced to choose sides that we are at our most open-minded. By nature, most human beings like to think of ourselves as independently minded. And even people who have never voted outside of party lines (whose vote in 2012 is so taken for granted that the campaigns aren’t likely to even come to their states), for this brief moment can at least imagine that their mind is open with regard to whom they will vote for.

Sure, they may have never and will likely never for “that other party” under any circumstances. But they can at least imagine a theoretically perfect candidate for them, and further imagine a situation (such as an incumbent deciding to not run or the emergence of a third party) that would make choosing this perfect candidate a possibility. And as long as they are willing to entertain the possibility of doing something other than voting along predictable lines, there exists a window in which to have a conversation before all choices are certain and passion makes analytic discussion more and more difficult.

Not that emotion will be irrelevant during any point of this exercise. As we will find out, being a critical thinker does not mean turning yourself into a Vulcan and looking at the world through the prism of logic alone. Emotion plays an important role in our thinking as do other “illogical” components of our mental makeup (including the seemingly anti-logical notion of faith).

It’s just that there comes a time during a campaign when all options are known and people begin dividing themselves into armed camps and build fortifications against facts and opinions that don’t comply with their beliefs. At that point (which is still months away) critical thinking is still possible, but finding someone to argue with becomes ever more difficult.

If it sounds like I know of what I speak, that’s because this is actually the second time I’ve done a project like this, albeit along different lines and based on a different schedule. So tune in next time for “The Return of Undecidedman.”