CloudofSteam

In the midst of a report on the 7:30 Report about the current visit of Lord Monckton to Australia and the continuing debate about climate change, Australia’s Chief Scientist Professor Penny Sackett broke through with an startling insight: labeling people doesn’t advance the debate.

We’re beginning to describe people as sceptics or denialists or alarmist, warmist, all of these words that I’m beginning to hear. And I think that is very unhelpful, because when we’re doing that we’re actually playing the man and not ball. We should be discussing the science, not labelling people. 1.

This is a basic logical problem called argumentum ad hominem, defined by Wikipedia as:

Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false

In the cut and thrust seen with the return of political debate, watching out for this logical pothole is crucial. You know it’s true, because I’m a nice guy and I just told you.

1. Prof Penny Sackett, “Climate wars- Lord Monckton visits Australia” 7:30 Report 04/02/2010

Creative Commons: Al Manakh Debate & Lecture @ NAi – Sept 10, 2007 by dysturb

If you’ve ever had a real discussion about a topic of importance, there is a good chance that you have disagreed with something about your point of view. An understanding of logic makes it easier to decide which information is relevant and which to disregard. It also allows you to rule out red herrings.
Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds recently published these notes on Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Logic (pp. 28-33):

There are three kinds of thoughts, or three acts of the mind:

1. Simple apprehension [understanding a simple term--e.g., "man"]
2. Judging [relating two concepts by predicating one term of the other--e.g., "man is mortal"]
3. Reasoning [relating two or more judgments with a conclusion--e.g., "man is mortal; I'm a man; therefore I'm mortal"]

These three acts of the mind result in three mental products:

1. Concepts (the products of conceiving)
2. Judgments (the products of judging)
3. Arguments (the products of reasoning, or arguing)

Expressed logically these are:

1. Terms
2. Propositions
3. Arguments (most commonly, syllogisms)

These logical entities answer the three most fundamental questions:

1. A term answers what something is.
2. A proposition answers whether something is.
3. An argument answers why it is.

These logical entities also reveal three aspects of reality:

1. Terms reveal essences (what something is).
2. Propositions reveal existence (whether something is).
3. Arguments reveal causes (why something is).

These logical entities can be judged logically good or logically bad:

1. Terms are either clear or unclear (=ambiguous).
2. Propositions are either true or false.
3. Arguments are either valid or invalid.

To make a convincing argument you have to fulfill all three of the following conditions:

1. Your terms are clear.
2. Your premises are true.
3. Your logic is valid.

If you want to critique someone’s argument, you have to show an error in just one of the following:

1. They are using a term ambiguously.
2. They are using a false premise.
3. They are committing a logical fallacy (i.e., the argument is invalid; the conclusion does not follow from the premises).

Labels: logic

The most important tools of a journalist’s trade are the 4 W’s (& a H): What, where, when, why and how. If you ignore any of them your story is incomplete.
My favourite question is “Why?”. While a lot of people ask “Why not?”, I want a positive reason to do something. Many times people flippantly say “You must do x” and I love to ask “Why?”. “I think it’d be a good idea,” isn’t going to cut it.
Why do you think it is a good idea? What will it achieve? Why should I invest my time or my money, the incarnation of time?

Labels: money, purpose, Time, why