FORMAL LOGIC

[Stephen3141]

If you have read the thread, you realize that I presented the 20 Rules of Inference
as a starting point. Then, I emphasized that Christians must be careful to "justify"
their initial premises in a proof. And, if they cannot demonstrate that their initial
premises are true, THEN their entire proof becomes Unsound.

The modern rules of inference only tell us when a proof is logically INVALID.
But premises that can be shown to be false, or unfounded, produce an UNSOUND proof.

For Christians, the Bible is a key source against which to evaluate the Soundness
of initial premises. For those claiming to reason from a Christian worldview, their
premises must be justified according to truths in the Bible, or that are compatible
with biblical assertions.

---------- ----------

I would rather push forward with analyzing arguments/proofs, from a Christian point of view.
Although I value the ability to use logical notation, this is a secondary consideration.
We can use the modern Rules of Inference, even though we do not use the standard modern logical notation.

---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

Argument:

---------- ----------
Assumptions:
1 Our human senses are not accurate For all x, (if Hx ==> NOT Ax)
2 We do not live in a shared reality. For all x, (if x is human, ==> NOT Sx)
3 We act upon what our senses tell us. This is not very precise. What does "act upon" mean?

4 Therefore, faith in God cannot be based on true perceptions of reality.

---------- ----------

Analysis from a Christian worldview...

There are many assertions in the Bible. Such as

5 We do live in a shared reality
6 Our physical senses are "pretty" accurate
7 We have free will, and this can affect how we interpret our physical senses
8 God holds us responsible for properly perceiving our shared reality
9 When we falsely characterize our shared reality, the Bible calls this "lying"
10 Lying is defined as a sin in the Bible
11 God has given us a conscience, which is a built-in knowledge of the
difference between good and evil, between sinning and doing what is righteous.
11 At the final judgment, God will hold us accountable for our sins.

(Note that each of these biblical premises, need to be justified as
representing what the Bible teaches....)

---------- ----------
Analysis of the Argument:

(1) is contradicted by the biblical assertion (6), so (1) is Unsound.
(2) is contradicted by the biblical assertion (5), so (2) is Unsound
(3) We may, or may not, act on what our senses tell us. We have free will.

(4) The Conclusion includes the concept of "faith", that is not defined in the argument.
Formally, using a concept in the Conclusion, that is not defined in the premises or the
body of the proof, results in a Conclusion that does not follow logically from the premises.
In this sense, the Conclusion is logically Invalid.
In the Bible, faith is a position that one comes to or accepts, that can be supported by truths.
In this sense, using (5-7) and a biblical definition of faith, we can contradict the Conclusion.

---------- ----------

Observations...

Note that arguments like this one, do not start with concepts of our shared reality
that the Bible asserts, nor do they accept that our human senses give us basically
accurate information about our shared reality.

Arguments like this do not represent the complexity of human beings, given our free will.
We can choose to acknowledge evidence from our shared reality.
We can choose to ignore evidence from our shared reality.
We can choose to believe some conspiracy theory reality, that cannot be rigorously justified
with real evidence.
We can choose to believe evidence, when we want to (such as, there is objective justice)
We can choose to reject evidence when we want to (such as rejecting that we have free will,
when we break the law)
We can choose to not pay attention to our shared reality
We can claim that God has not given us ENOUGH evidence,
to be morally-ethically responsible for our actions.

Many arguments like this one, use basic definitions and an understanding
of reality and our senses, that do not match biblical assertion.
So, these arguments are Unsound, in a Christian worldview.
---------- ----------

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Please can you give a couple of examples, on contrasting subjects?

 

[Stephen3141]

So, a few arguments about "our shared reality" to consider...

(By "our shared reality" I mean that there are certain aspects about our lives,
that we share. We live in the same physical universe. We have the same type of
human perceptions -- if we use them. We can detect the same kind of evidence from
this shared reality.

We all live in different LOCATIONS in this shared reality, and that changes a bit
how we view this reality. By LOCATION, I also include TIME. So, there are aspects
of this shared reality that each of us may not know, but perhaps could discover if
we made the effort.

We need to discuss what the COMPONENTS of this shared reality are.
And whether we are morally-ethically responsible for recognizing the
components in our shared reality.)


Argument 1:

We all live in a shared reality.

The Bible projects that we all live in a shared reality, because
1 the Bible holds out a common moral-ethical standard that God expects us to follow
2 the Bible presents that each of us will be judged by God, based on how we chose to live our life
3 We will each be judged by the same moral-ethical standard
4 the Bible presents that we each knew the difference between right and wrong, as the Bible presents these concepts.

-- None of this would be possible, or just, if we did not live in a shared reality.

---------- ----------
Argument 2:

1 The Bible presents that we are morally-ethically responsible for the components that exist, in our shared reality.
2 We can choose to pay attention to this shared reality, or to ignore some or all of it.
An example would be choosing to seek knowledge and understanding, or not.
3 We can choose to misrepresent some of all of what we perceive of this shared reality
4 Misrepresenting this shared reality (bearing false witness) is called LYING
5 LYING is a sin, in Judaism and Christianity
6 Persistent LYING, in the Christian worldview, will keep us out of the kingdom of heaven.
7 Misrepresenting our shared reality, including the COMPONENTS of that shared reality,
is LYING.

---------- ----------
Argument 3:

Some of the components of our shared reality are...
(according to the Christian worldview)

1 the physical universe
2 valid reasoning methods
3 moral-ethical truth, as a direct revelation from God in the conscience
4 abstract concepts (such as OWNERSHIP)
5 The text of the Bible
6 The "history" of God's People (not necessary, in the genre of modern history)
7 True verbal witness of an event
8 the existence of God
9 some of the attributes of God
...

---------- ----------

NOTE: many of the Assertions in these arguments, are assertions that are
core doctrines of Christianity. These arguments are explicitly from the
standpoint of a Christian worldview.

Assertions in arguments, need to be justified, in order to be considered facts.
(This is a basic proposition in Epistemology. A belief/opinion needs to be
justified with evidence (from our shared reality), before that belief/opinion
can be considered to be a fact.)

I would consider that these Assertions about our shared reality, are NECESSARY
topics of discussion for Christian apologetics. This is a good start.

Much more specifically CHRISTIAN arguments, should be able to reference these
basic (Christian) assertions about reality.

Although starting out with the topic of our shared reality, and the nature of LYING,
may seem a bit weird to modern Americans, it quickly leads to some very volatile
(and hopefully polite) discussions.

More arguments to come.
You could put these assertions in the form of formal logic notation, is you wish.

 

[Stephen3141]

Examples of arguments dealing with our shared reality…

Argument 1:

1 The Bible uses all sorts of language that deals with intellectual activity.
(Human language, and what it means, is part of our shared reality.)
2 The Bible promotes some (good) types of intellectual activity,
while condemning other sorts of intellectual activity.

3 Therefore, the Bible recognizes valid reasoning methods,
as being part of our shared reality.

Argument 2:

1 Valid reasoning methods are part of our shared reality.
2 Lying about our shared reality, is a serious sin in Christianity.

3 Therefore, misrepresenting valid reasoning methods in our shared reality,
is a serious sin in Christianity.

4 Therefore, anti-intellectual Christian groups that deny that reason, and
valid reasoning methods are part of our shared reality, are perpetuating
the continual sin of lying about our shared reality.

 

[helmut]

Argument 3:
Some of the components of our shared reality are...
(according to the Christian worldview)

…
3 moral-ethical truth, as a direct revelation from God in the conscience
…

Since the conscience of men do not all show the same moral-ethical truth, there is a factor comparable to your location factor in it. The conscience is influenced by environment (education, peer group, culture …), so persons do stress different aspects of God's values (and neglect others).

In the quote, I deleted some lines without contend after posting, in order to make visual the important line.

 

[Stephen3141]

Since the conscience of men do not all show the same moral-ethical truth, there is a factor comparable to your location factor in it. The conscience is influenced by environment (education, peer group, culture …), so persons do stress different aspects of God's values (and neglect others).

In the quote, I deleted some lines without contend after posting, in order to make visual the important line.

It's an interesting interpretation, of "location", that you suggest.

But in christianity, the Bible asserts that ALL human beings have the ability, given by God, to tell the difference between right and wrong.
And, God will judge us all according to the same moral-ethical code.
This suggests that our conscience tells us the same definitions of right and wrong.

 

[helmut]

But in christianity, the Bible asserts that ALL human beings have the ability, given by God, to tell the difference between right and wrong.
And, God will judge us all according to the same moral-ethical code.
This suggests that our conscience tells us the same definitions of right and wrong.

But definitely not the same minutely. Example:

In Gen 19, Lot prefers to protect his guest instead to protect his daughters, when he felt he could not protect all of them. In our cultures, hospitality is not as important as in the middle east, so we would decide otherwise. Does that mean Lot was wrong? According to 2.Pt 2:7, he was righteous. Does that mean we have the wrong moral code when we place sexual moral over hospitality?

If you look to other continents, Christians sometimes come to interpretation of the Bible and Gods will that are different from our western viewpoint. If we refuse those interpretations that can be refuted by the Biblical texts and logic, there remain differences that are culture-driven, and it would be hasty simply to say our western view is correct.

 

[Stephen3141]

But definitely not the same minutely. Example:

In Gen 19, Lot prefers to protect his guest instead to protect his daughters, when he felt he could not protect all of them. In our cultures, hospitality is not as important as in the middle east, so we would decide otherwise. Does that mean Lot was wrong? According to 2.Pt 2:7, he was righteous. Does that mean we have the wrong moral code when we place sexual moral over hospitality?

If you look to other continents, Christians sometimes come to interpretation of the Bible and Gods will that are different from our western viewpoint. If we refuse those interpretations that can be refuted by the Biblical texts and logic, there remain differences that are culture-driven, and it would be hasty simply to say our western view is correct.

When I say that all human beings have the ability to detect the difference between right and wrong, I am referring to Paul's assertion that God has provided all human beings with a conscience.

I am not addressing the question of whether or not all people actually use that conscience.

 

[helmut]

When I say that all human beings have the ability to detect the difference between right and wrong, I am referring to Paul's assertion that God has provided all human beings with a conscience.

I am not addressing the question of whether or not all people actually use that conscience.

Not using that conscience - this is e.g. a man who commits adultery and knows that this is wrong, but he prefers to say it is OK. Up to the point where the knowledge is almost sub-conscious.

I speak of people who use their conscience, but it tells them a somewhat different version. Not a totally different version - I strongly doubt that any conscience will say adultery is normal and good. Maybe Lk 12:47-8 sheds light on this matter?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you have read the thread, you realize that I presented the 20 Rules of Inference
as a starting point. Then, I emphasized that Christians must be careful to "justify"
their initial premises in a proof. And, if they cannot demonstrate that their initial
premises are true, THEN their entire proof becomes Unsound.

The modern rules of inference only tell us when a proof is logically INVALID.
But premises that can be shown to be false, or unfounded, produce an UNSOUND proof.

For Christians, the Bible is a key source against which to evaluate the Soundness
of initial premises. For those claiming to reason from a Christian worldview, their
premises must be justified according to truths in the Bible, or that are compatible
with biblical assertions.

---------- ----------

I would rather push forward with analyzing arguments/proofs, from a Christian point of view.
Although I value the ability to use logical notation, this is a secondary consideration.
We can use the modern Rules of Inference, even though we do not use the standard modern logical notation.

---------- ----------

I do the complete opposite. I only bring in the Bible as a last consideration, and its contents have to "prove" themselves as they are analyzed inductively and abductively as additional historical considerations along with all of the data we have--scientific, historical, sociological, etc--- about the world we live in ...

Furthermore, as an Existentialist and Skeptic, I firmly know that no one has the last word on the nature of "reality" and thus, most deductions end up being rather unsound or merely tautological. It's best not to assume we can start with the bible to explain all of reality, much or most of which we can't fully understand or know.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When I say that all human beings have the ability to detect the difference between right and wrong, I am referring to Paul's assertion that God has provided all human beings with a conscience.

I am not addressing the question of whether or not all people actually use that conscience.

I think this is an unwarranted interpretive assumption on your part about what constitutes a singular verse (or two). The fact is, we don't really know what Paul was referring to in Romans 1:18-20. But many evangelical Christians like to pull it out and use it like it's some kind of self evidentially apparently bully stick.

Well, newsflash everyone, the epistemology for Paul's theological comment doesn't quite work out so easily as all of that ... at least not on a more noumenal level. I'm not even sure it's clearly evident on a phenomenal level either. So, it's probably better to hold the citing of these verses from Paul in a more passive, even if in a still cautionary, way. They're to be cited and rationally applied to yourself as you read the letter to the Romans, not harbored so you can bandy them about and use them like a club of domination on all of the other interlocutors you encounter and with whom you may dialogue.

 

[Stephen3141]

I do the complete opposite. I only bring in the Bible as a last consideration, and its contents have to "prove" themselves as they are analyzed inductively and abductively as additional historical considerations along with all of the data we have--scientific, historical, sociological, etc--- about the world we live in ...

Furthermore, as an Existentialist and Skeptic, I firmly know that no one has the last word on the nature of "reality" and thus, most deductions end up being rather unsound or merely tautological. It's best not to assume we can start with the bible to explain all of reality, much or most of which we can't fully understand or know.

As far as a Christian, doing Christian apologetics, it is necessary for a Christian at some point to tie their reasoning to what is distinctively Christian. So, this must involve tying your reasoning to what historic Christians see as "authorities" that determine the beliefs of Christianity.

Explicitly Christian doctrines may be brought into an argument wither early or late. If early, they should be demonstrated to be consistent with our shared reality. If late, then they should be demonstrated to be consistent with our shared reality.

I see no inherent problem with introducing biblical assertions early in an argument. But, for apologetics, a christian should know that those who are non-Christians will probably NOT be convinced that biblical assertions are true.

 

[Stephen3141]

I think this is an unwarranted interpretive assumption on your part about what constitutes a singular verse (or two). The fact is, we don't really know what Paul was referring to in Romans 1:18-20. But many evangelical Christians like to pull it out and use it like it's some kind of self evidentially apparently bully stick.

Well, newsflash everyone, the epistemology for Paul's theological comment doesn't quite work out so easily as all of that ... at least not on a more noumenal level. I'm not even sure it's clearly evident on a phenomenal level either. So, it's probably better to hold the citing of these verses from Paul in a more passive, even if in a still cautionary, way. They're to be cited and rationally applied to yourself as you read the letter to the Romans, not harbored so you can bandy them about and use them like a club of domination on all of the other interlocutors you encounter and with whom you may dialogue.

When I refer to "verses", I am referring to a system of reference to the written text of the Bible.
I am not referring to a discrete "thought" that the text of the Bible is presenting.

What meaning the verse(s) point to, should be considered.

 

[Stephen3141]

About Logic and Proving things...

I have presented the rules of modern symbolic logic.
These subsume the Aristotelian system of syllogisms, but are more powerful (because they are "complete").

Now, I need to point out how deductive logic can properly be used by Christians.
---------- ----------

Note that truth tables are used to simply list all the possible TRUE/FALSE combinations
of a number of propositions.

When we consider a system of propositions, a truth table of all possible combinations
of TRUE/FALSE values of all the PROPOSITIONS forms a "problem space" for the
discussion.

Note that a single logical proposition may include one, or more than one concept.
In many systems of reasoning (such as theologies), Multiple concepts are linked
in the way that "rules" (material implications) are formed. Because there are links
between logical rules, these links also force constraints on the types of combinations
of TRUE/FALSE values that different rules may have.

(This is why some theologies MUST read certain passages of Scripture with
constrained meanings. They must read into Scripture, specific meanings that
are narrower than the linguistic possibility of meanings of the biblical text,
in order to make the theological system as a whole, "work".)

A basic truth table involving 2 propositions, A and B:
(pleas ignore the periods -- they are an artifact that the editor adds, not me...)

A. B
---------
T. T. 1
T. F. 2
F. T 3
F. F. 4

Note that if we assert that A logically causes (implies) B, then
two of the horizontal lines of the truth table MUST BE TRUE, in real life.
These are lines 1 and 4.

So, (if) A ==> B
then if A is TRUE, B must be TRUE.
if B is FALSE then A must be FALSE.

So, (if) A ==> B
then line 1 demonstrates Modus Ponens,
and line 4 demonstrates Modus Tollens.


Also, line 2 MUST BE FALSE. (if A==> B)

So, if line 2 is TRUE, then NOT(A==>B) is TRUE. (Modus Ponens does not hold)
if line 2 is TRUE, then NOT(A==>B) is TRUE. (Modus Tollens does not hold)

NOTE that line 3 of the truth table, does not prove ANYTHING
about a supposed relationship of A ==> B.

---------- ----------

NOTE: When we consider the entire problem space (truth table) that applies
to a system of propositions, we may KNOW what some of the lines of the
truth table evaluate to, from OUR SHARED REALITY. (Remember, that
Christianity and Judaism are big on the concept of our shared reality, and
this concept is connected to the concept of lying, and telling the truth.)

In this case, we may demonstrate from the rules of inference, that some
other propositions must be true.

But to be a Christian system of reasoning, all the initial premises
(read Assumptions) in a proof must be distinctly Christian, or
compatible with Christianity.

---------- ----------

 

[Stephen3141]

About Logic and Proving things... an example

Suppose that someone wants to assert that
If God exists, then there will be water on earth. (Water, is a good thing for people...)

We could symbolize this as:
G: God exists
W: Water exists on earth

the entire assertion is
G ==> W

In formal logic, the way to prove a material implication (logical causality)
is using the syllogism that is called Conditional Proof. The form of this is:

to prove A ==>B

assume A
prove B
Therefore A ==> B. (by the rule Conditional Proof)

So, to apply this method

to prove G ==> W
assume G
prove W
Therefore, we have proved that G ==> W

Note, that from our shared reality, we observe that there is water on earth.
So W is TRUE.

??? Is it proper to infer that G ==> W is TRUE????
---------- ----------
Analysis of this argument...

Remember the problem space that a truth table lays out:

A. B. (for any logical proposition A and B)
---------
T. T. 1
T. F. 2
F. T 3
F. F. 4

Applied to this proof, using the propositions G and W...

We see that line 1 of the truth table is TRUE for G and W, so Modus Ponens holds
We know that line 4 of the truth table MUST HOLD, if G ==> W
BUT, we have no way to verify that (NOT W ==> NOT G)
because we do not have a world in which there is no water.
So we cannot prove Modus Tollens, with regard to the supposition G ==> W.

Even if we appeal to the Bible's assertion that "God exists",
from formal logic we still cannot demonstrate G ==> W.

WARNING! WARNING!

This proof is faulty, because it can only demonstrate 1 of the requirements of
logical causality between G and W (that of Modus Ponens). But it cannot
demonstrate that Modus Tollens is also true of the supposition G ==> W.

We could say from this proof, that the existence of water on earth is
COMPATIBLE with the supposition that G ==> W. But the existence
of water on earth does not demonstrate that God exists (given this
group of Assumptions/initial Premises.

---------- ----------

Note that if we use the approach of Reductio ad Absurdam, to prove
that G ==> G, then we would assume the negation of what we want to
prove, and try to demonstrate a logical contradiction exists.

So, to prove G ==> W

Assume NOT(G ==> W). this is NOT (NOT God OR W) which is (God exists AND water does not exist on earth)
try to demonstrate a contradiction
note that we could NEVER prove that NOT W, because water DOES exist on earth
So, we can never prove this contradiction

So, reductio ad absurdam shows us that we can never have the information
needed to prove the supposition G ==> W.

---------- ----------

General observation from this example:

If our argument includes a proposition that ONLY has one possible value,
(which we observe in our shared reality),
then it is impossible to demonstrate that any ONE cause could cause this
value. Because, we cannot reason about all the possible values of this
proposition.
---------- ----------

Consider these arguments:

If God is good, then there would be no evil in this world.
G ==> NOT e
There is evil in this world.
Therefore, God is not good.

Note that from our shared reality, there is "evil" in the world.
This means that we cannot directly reason, using our shared reality,
about conditions in which evil would not exist.

Note that an infinite number of arguments could also be asserted,
but none of them would prove to be demonstrable. For example...

If we all ate only vegan food, then there would be no evil in the world.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, we do not all eat vegan food.

If Donald Trump were president, then there would be no evil in the world.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, Donald Trump is not president.

If there were 45 gender assignments then there would be no evil in the world.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore there are not 45 gender assignments.

---------- ----------

BIG observation:

Although there are fixed truths in our shared reality (Propositions that can ONLY
have one value), these must be asserted as facts in our proofs.

If we want to demonstrate logical causation (material implication), then we need
to be able to reason about BOTH TRUE and FALSE situations in the tail of the
supposed material implication. (The tail of an implication is the proposition at
the head of the arrow).

As far as the hard sciences use logic, they can often created miniature environments
(experiments) in which there are different values to the different components involved
in the experiment, in order to observe the outcome. In this way, both Modus Ponens
and Modus Tollens conditions could be tested, with regard to supposed causality.

But, even with the hard sciences, there are certain conditions which are global
constants. And reasoning about the cause of these definitively, is almost impossible.
It is possible to reason that these global constants follow logically from SOME
of the models of the natural world (or do not). That is, some experiments support
some models, and disprove other models.

Christians need to be very careful, in their application of formal logic in apologetics.
Often, logic can support some assertions in the Bible, or logic is unable to confirm
some assertions in the Bible.

Formal logic can support some models that Christians use, or contradict them, or
have nothing to say about them.

 

[Stephen3141]

Note that the argument above, was about proving Logical Causality.

It is a very different thing to demonstrate that
a. 2 things exist, and
b. 1 of those things CAUSES the other to exist.

The example (above) was pointing out that even if you are convinced that

1. God exists
2. water on earth exists

it is impossible from formal logic, from these 2 facts (as seen by Christians),
that God causes the water on earth to exist.

Note, that given the 2 facts (above), formal logic can
produce the proposition 1 AND 2. This is using the logical
operator AND, to combine separate facts into one statement.

But, in formal logic, it is different to state facts, than it is to
prove that one fact CAUSES other facts.

NOTE: this misunderstanding between what a fact is, and what CAUSALITY
is, is a common misunderstanding in modern America.

 

[Stephen3141]

Other examples of misunderstandings between facts, and causality.

These examples may not be politically correct, so set aside your emotions...
---------- ----------
Argument 1

I like chocolate ice cream
I have a pet dog

Therefore, liking chocolate ice cream caused me to have a pet dog. (This is false)
---------- ----------
Argument 2

Poor people are often abused by rich people (True)
Rich people often abuse poor people (True)
God knows these facts (True)

Therefore, God ought to have different Moral-Ethical standards
for poor people and rich people. (This is false)
---------- ----------
Argument 3

Some policemen are racist (True)
Racism can lead to unfair treatment by the police. (True)
I am a black man (As an assumption, assume that this is true)
I was pulled over for speeding (As an assumption, assume that this is true)

Therefore, I was pulled over because I am a black man. (This is not logically proven, from the assumptions)
---------- ----------

Argument 4
I am a woman (as an assumption, assume this is true)
There is a history of some men mistreating women. (true)
God has specific commands as to how women are to behave. (true)

Therefore, God is a male chauvinist (false)

---------- ----------
Argument 5

I like chocolate ice cream (assume this is true, as an assumption)
I am a woman (assume this is true, as an assumption)
God has specific commands as to how women are to behave. (true)

Therefore, God has different behavior requirements for men and
women, because I like chocolate ice cream. (this does not follow logically from the assumptions)

---------- ----------
Argument 6

Some people are racist (this is true)
Some racists do not think that they are racist. (this is true)
Some people who have been the target of racism, are good at identifying racist behavior (this is true)

Therefore, it takes someone who has experienced racist behavior, to recognize
signs of racist behavior. (not necessarily true, does not follow logically from the assumptions)

Therefore, it takes someone who has experienced racist behavior,
to identify those who are racists, but believe that they are not. (does not follow logically from the assumptions)

---------- ----------

Note that all these arguments start with stating some facts.
But, the conclusion asserts a CAUSAL relationship.

Note that formal logic needs more than a collection of facts,
in order to prove a CAUSAL relationship.

Note that the arguments that many modern Americans use,
are DEFECTIVE with regard to demonstrating CAUSAL relationships.

Note that this is the reason why many younger Americans like
CONSPIRACY THEORIES so much. Conspiracy theories are stories
that sometimes overlap with a few facts (from reality). BUT
conspiracy theories assert CAUSALITY and supposed facts
that are largely unproven from our shared reality.

Note that to try to justify the assertions in a conspiracy theory,
the holder of the theory is stuck is a tar pit of trying to assert
more and more "alternate" facts from an "alternate" version of
reality, because the evidence from our shared reality does not
provide evidence to justify (in epistemological language) the truth
of the conspiracy theory.

 

[Stephen3141]

About Abduction.

Abduction is, informally, trying to reason from some facts,
to a supposed conclusion.

As a syllogism, abduction is

A ==> B
B
Therefore this (abductively) suggests that A is true

(This is NOT a rule of inference in deductive logic)


Abductive reasoning is NOT deductive reasoning.
Abductive reasoning is weaker than deductive reasoning,
in that abductive Conclusions are not guaranteed to be true.
(In deductive reasoning, Conclusions are guaranteed to be true.)

Note that abduction is USEFUL, in order to TRY to identify
causal relationships. But abduction DOES NOT PROVE
causal relationships.

---------- ----------

Note that with regard to things that are CAUSED, there are often
many possible causes for what is caused.

Note that many examples of Disjunctive Fallacy,
are examples of people starting with dysfunctional lists
of what could cause what.

We could see the problem of having dysfunctional lists of what
could cause what, as having a dysfunctional view of our
shared reality.

Argument 10

I have opinions. (true)
Other people have opinions. (true)
There are Neo-Nazis (true)
Some people's opinions do not agree with mine. (true)

Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are a Neo-Nazi. (Logic cannot prove this)

(Note: with formal logic, you can demonstrate that
Some people's opinions do not agree with mine.
AND
There are Neo-Nazis.)

---------- ----------

Thinking of a Venn diagram of all the possibilities in our shared reality,
it is not reasonable to think of 2 types of human beings:
people who agree with me
Neo-Nazis

Do these divisions of reality describe ALL human beings?

Thinking of a truth table, and all true/false combinations of
people agreeing with me, and being a Neo-Nazi, what about

people who agree with me and are NOT a Neo-Nazi?
people who disagree with me, and are NOT a Neo-Nazi?
people who agree with me, and ARE a Neo-Nazi?

Note that the disjunction concluded in Argument 10, only
covers 1 of the 3 possibilities in the truth table.

Note: there is the further problem of not having established
that "agreeing with me" has ANY CAUSAL relationship with
making someone a Neo-Nazi.

Note that "agreeing with me" has nothing to do with the historical
characteristics that would be used to suggest that a person is a
Neo-Nazi. And so the disjunction in Argument 10, is not in line
with our shared reality, as far as historical characteristics of
Neo-Nazis is concerned.
---------- ----------

Note that we could list a large number of characteristics that
may SUGGEST abductively that a person may be a Neo-Nazi...

The person wears a chimney sweep mustache
The person likes wearing black combat boots
The person has a punk hair cut
The person likes Euro-thrash music
The person despises non-Arian people as lesser than fully human
The person likes the Hitler salute
The person has German Third Reich symbols painted on their car
The person is constantly talking about a superior race
The person likes Mein Kampf
The person believes in global conspiracy theories against Nordic white people
...

We could make each of these into an "abductive suggesting notation, such as
The person wears a chimney sweep mustache == abd. ==> is a Neo-Nazi
....

But even in a list of somewhat relevant characteristics of a Neo-Nazi,
"agreeing with me" is not on the list.
---------- ----------

And yet, this form of argument is common in the social media space...

if you disagree with me == > you're a racist
if you disagree with me ==> you're sexist
if you disagree with me ==> you despise my native culture
...

---------- ----------

Christians have got to recognize that these arguments result from a
dysfunctional concept of the problem space of possibilities, which is
to say, from having a dysfunctional idea of what our shared reality is.

 

[Stephen3141]

On Logical Causation, and Conspiracy Theories

---------- ----------
Some Principles related to Formal Logic, addressed above, are:

1 Formal logic deals with Assumptions
2 Assumptions can be Facts, or Causal Statements (aka rules or theorems)
3 Facts can can stand alone, and should be justified (they should match our shared reality)
4 Rules involve a causal relationship between 2 propositions
5 Rules must fulfill the requirements of Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens
6 abductive reasoning does not meet the rigorous requirements of deductive reasoning
---------- ----------

Assertion: Conspiracy Theories involve common dysfunctions related to Formal Logic:

1 A Conspiracy Theory is an explanation, not a Proof.
2 Conspiracy Theories often misunderstand Correlation of facts, to be Causality.
3 Conspiracy Theories often assert that characteristics most people would
consider to be irrelevant to an argument, are indeed relevant.
4 Conspiracy Theories often have a very low or dysfunctional approach to trying to justify an assertion.
5 Conspiracy Theories often are based on a haphazard list of characteristic/facts
(So is common reasoning about social action, or justice....)
6 The "evidence" that Conspiracy Theories present, often does not meet
rigorous standards of evidence, required by a fair rule of law (such as the
fair rule of law, in America). Often, "evidence" is only a personal or group
shared emotion, that cannot be justified from our shared reality.
7 Those who embrace Conspiracy Theories, often do not agree with the
rigorous process of law that is required to justify the testimony from a witness,
as a fact.
8 Those embracing a conspiracy theory are often emotionally attached to some
of the components o the theory, but cannot logically justify that the components of the
theory are part of our shared reality.
9 Those who embrace a Conspiracy Theory, often will "demonstrate" (or riot)
together, but individually, they often cannot put into words any coherent
explanation of why they are involved in this activity.

American society is becoming more and more susceptible to conspiracy theories,
because the younger generations of Americans have largely abandoned formal
logic. And, they have replaced logic with emotions.
---------- ----------

NOTE: When I talk about Conspiracy Theories, I am not talking exclusively about
the arena of politics or social justice. There are methods of Bible interpretation
that some groups use, that share a lot of the characteristics of Conspiracy Theories
(for example).
---------- ---------