I’ve often noticed no one seems to understand what the hell logic is. You can quickly find this by simply asking “what’s the method you’re using to draw your conclusion? What type of logic are you applying?” and they’re dumbfounded. Often times they avoid giving a straight answer because they simply don’t want to look stupid or be wrong. They’ll start attacking you for your stupidity and ignorance and claim absurd by pointing out logical fallacies and rules.
“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.” -Margaret Thatcher
For example: I recently pointed out in casual conversation that Aristotle invented logic. I’m soon being attacked. The speaker is more interested in looking smart and making me look stupid than making a valid point. He claims that to say “someone invented logic” is one of the most absurd things he’s heard. I ask if he can give me some names for logical fallacies or the types of logic that exist. I ask the same question again and again and again while he gives me different answers that have nothing to do with the question. He begins to choke. I ask him to define logic, and he answers with “you define it!” so I do, it’s a system of thinking were certain rules apply in order to give credibility to certain interferes. He claims this is absurd, logic is not a system, no one has invented anything. He explains that we know something is logical or not intuitively and neither Aristotle nor anyone else invented this intuition that we are born with.
I laugh.
This is an individual about to graduate with a masters from one of the top universities from the United States. I simply took my phone and did some screen captions on the definition and history of logic. That shut him up, but he never admitted to be wrong.
Talk about the decline of Western Civilization…
I’ve been told by others that if something is logical it’s automatically true. Me saying that something being logical doesn’t make it an absolute truth was literally attacked. They refused to acknowledge that if the assumptions they based their logic on was wrong it would mean their conclusion would be wrong. I asked them the same questions and it’s obvious they’ve never studied logic, and based their assumptions on intuition also.
The basic fact that there’s different types of logic and that these types of logic have certain rules that apply in certain contexts is furiously denied. Not accepted. Argued against. This is mind-blowing.
To give you a real world example: I used to work with consultants that called themselves “gamification gurus.” You can simply ask these people what’s the methods they’re using to come up with their conclusion and you’ll realize they don’t know what the hell they’re doing. They don’t even know the basic difference between deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning. Example:
One of the core arguments they hold is that gamification is the “dopamine revolution” and they’re causing massive amounts of dopamine release in a similar way you see in video games, only that it’s now being released in boring activities such as an employee at work. Their logic is as follows:
A. Studies show video games cause massive amounts of dopamine release in players brains.
B. Gamification is about applying the techniques that cause these dopamine releases in video games into contexts outside video games.
C. Therefore gamification is causing dopamine release similar to those in video games outside video games.
I’ve asked these people “why the hell are you using deductive logic to come up with your conclusions in social contexts?” Deductive logic works well with mathematics, not so much in social contexts. And the rule for deductive logic to apply in the same context, not to cross different domains with your interference.
For example: The math for finance isn’t going to be the same math for physics. You can’t use the formulas of finance and claim it works in physics and vice versa. You may find rules for behaviors in an ant hill that don’t apply in humans.
The same happens between human contexts. An anthropologists doesn’t walk into a new situation and says “if married couples act in a certain ways in Germany, and I have a married couple in Argentina, this means that because they’re both married they’ll act the same way.” Instead they try to eliminate all preconceived biases and observe the Argentinian couple with new eyes, they apply abductive logic. The context changes and so must the research tools.
The book A Moment of Clarity by consultancy firm ReD Associates goes into this basic concept into more detail. It explains that many of the popular business fads and consultancy firm methods being applied don’t understand these different types of logic and therefore come up with erroneous conclusions again and again and again.
You literally have a whole society that claims that their views are being backed by science who can’t even give you the definition of science or the scientific method. Complete morons who claim their opinion is an objective truth, but are too stupid to even understand how they’re whole thinking is a logical fallacy. Too proud to even consider that the fluffy feelings in their belly isn’t logic nor an absolute truth.
As for gamification you have individuals who have spent their careers chasing ideals they would have quickly discarded had they simply studied the basics of critical thinking. But there there are, some have finally given up after years in their pursuit, other persist as they hold on to their day jobs. Wasted lives. To call them a wasted potential might be getting ahead of ourselves but wasted lives defines them just fine.
Is there a solution to this? Perhaps not.
“Everyone being allowed to learn to read – will ruin in the long run not only writing but thinking too.” -Nietzsche
The definition for stupidity is the inability to understand. We have to realize that despite our efforts there will always be people that will simply not be able to think logically, and this isn’t a failure in education but they simply can’t fallow its rules. You can’t teach algebra to a horse. They will never understand the logical fallacies they’re using and will persist that their opinion is not only valid, but that it’s right, and if you refuse to acknowledge this it’s because you’re morally flawed or even stupid to see the world as they do. They intuitively know their opinion is right and their intuition is logic.
Those of use who understand this need to hold them responsible and ask them again and again “what’s the method you’re applying to come up with your conclusion” and if it’s not valid point this out and hammer their fallacy out of existence. If they can’t understand the process for critical thinking they have no authority. It’s as simple as that. Don’t accept a logical fallacy as a truth just because they begin crying louder. Imagine if the scientific community gave validity to any quack who claimed they’re not obligated to be held liable to the scientific method. For the sake of our society we must call out faulty thinking and not allow it to be implemented. We can’t sit back and allow these people to express their logical fallacies as valid and their fluffy feelings in their belly as authority.