A controversial issue can be solved by using logic
 
Opinion
The Spectrum
 
Anytime a highly charged issue is being discussed or debated, our ability to remain clear-headed can be challenged. In a culture where perception is regarded as reality, our understanding is too often based upon the parroting of short, carefully selected sound bites that are spoon-fed to us via the media. The picture is seldom complete, and the conclusions we draw may or may not be valid. This is where logic can be a powerful tool to gain a perspective that isn't based on mere emotional association.

Aristotle is generally credited with the invention of classical logic in his work Organon - meaning tool. He taught the importance of defining one's terms, classifying statements, syllogisms - or argument structures that by design appear to be indisputably valid, and finally, proofs by which an argument could be tested.

Let's use his Square of Oppositions tool to provide a contemporary example of why logical thinking is important to the issues we discuss. We'll start with two universal statements: All members of the FLDS community are guilty of something.

No members of the FLDS community are guilty of anything.

Would a rational person argue that these statements of absolutes are perfectly true? Not likely. However, when we argue the statements as particular forms, they become much more plausible:

Some members of the FLDS community may be guilty of something.

Not all members of the FLDS community are guilty of something.

Using particular forms to argue requires us to think in terms other than absolutes, but also offers more valid arguments than their universal counterparts. To those who prefer to think in black and white, this kind of logical thinking can be extremely challenging, but like defiant children who've been asked to eat their broccoli, they'll find that it's good for them even if they don't like it.

It helps to remember that logic cannot tell us what is true or false in reality, it cannot create a valid argument, and it cannot make an argument more convincing. It can, however, tell us if an argument is valid or not. Logic is valuable not because it will win every argument for us, but because it causes us to order our thinking and to instinctively test statements for their validity without simply buying into them. It allows us to examine our own arguments with greater precision and to express our viewpoints more effectively.

When Abraham Lincoln was a struggling law student, he was told by a professor that until he could "demonstrate" his arguments he would never be a lawyer. Lincoln went home and studied Euclidian geometry until he could give the first 173 proofs at sight. This ability to use proofs gave Lincoln an indisputable logical edge over opponents like Stephen Douglas, who in their famous debates often found himself in complete disagreement, but entirely unable to respond to Lincoln's points because of the logical manner in which they were presented.

With logical thinking, you won't always be right. But you won't be wrong very often, either.
 
TheSpectrum.com
Originally published May 5, 2008
 
Back