On Living the Good Life … Part II

HOW TO THINK LOGICALLY
Leroy Garrett

Man is by nature a question-asking animal. Thinking consists largely of asking questions and attempting to answer them. To be confronted with a problem should mean that one is forced to think reflectively for a solution. Man is unique in the animal world in that he is capable of ethical discrimination; he has aesthetic, creative, and imaginative powers that enable him to improve his lot continually. While animals can form only percepts, man can form concepts. Only man can communicate on the level of critical thought. The most intelligent animals cannot converse even to the point of saying so simple a statement as “So we are having coconut again today, eh?”. But man’s creativity finds expression in art, science, education, religion, philosophy, and literature.

In his Crucial Issues in Philosophy Daniel S. Robinson says that man has a primordial natural right to be wise. “The right to be wise implies the right to do independent and critical thinking on any problem or question that may arise.” He goes on to argue that “Wisdom, then, may be said to begin with the exercise of one’s capacity to do reflective or critical thinking.” If we are to be wise we must learn to think correctly. Some logicians believe that man fears thought as he fears nothing else on earth.

The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is not merely to set forth principles of right thinking and to caution against logical fallacies, but also to encourage one to be fearless as a thinker. Emerson says that man had better beware when God turns a thinker loose in the world! Something happens in one’s life when he is brave enough to think for himself and to break away from his narrow, bigoted past. Honest thinking is all too rare. Logic is as necessary as a bath and oftentimes just as rarely indulged in. If we are to live right we must think right. Aristotle was correct in insisting that morality is dependent first of all upon straight thinking. It is quite true that the main reason people do not live right is that they do not think right.

If Bacon’s aphorism is correct that “Reading maketh a full man, conversation a ready man, and writing an exact man,” it follows that one can be neither full, ready, nor exact unless he knows how to think. Thinking is an art, requiring skill as exact as that required for golf, chess or sewing. So the first fallacy we must combat is the notion that correct thinking comes naturally. Logic is an art to be learned. There is a reason why Aristotle placed logic next to godliness. Our failure to be good conversationalists is due in part to our neglect of the rules of thinking. Much of the religious confusion could be avoided by an appeal to logic. Even the political and international misunderstandings grow out of our inability to make ourselves understood.

WHY WE DO NOT THINK CLEARLY

R. W. Jepson, the British logician, in his book on Clear Thinking gives three reasons for our failure to think clearly. Since these are basic to nearly all the reasons for illogical thinking we enumerate them here with a few attending comments of our own.

1. Inadequate training in the use of words.

Socrates thought of philosophy as “the pursuit of meanings,” and as a teacher of the Greeks he sought to get his students to think about the meaning of the words they employed. He found that often the radical differences between antagonists in debate became insignificant once there was a clear understanding of the terms used. He emphasized definition as a key factor in getting an education. For generations the Greeks used such terms as justice, courage, wisdom, good, and evil, but their understanding of such terms was vague. For a lifetime they had used words without stopping to state precisely what they meant. Thus the great dialogues of Plato in which Socrates is the hero dealt largely with the science of words. It was then called rhetoric, the modern term being semantics.

Plato’s Republic. one of his longest works, is an effort to define and illustrate the meaning of justice. One is learning to think clearly when he can come to terms with his own vocabulary. Not only does it clear up his own thinking, but it makes conversations more reasonable. Two men can be arguing about democracy to no profit, but once there is a call for a definition of the terms used they will likely discover that they have been talking about two different things.

One rule is that a good thinker will be word conscious. He will form the habit of asking for an explanation of all vague terms. Even if he is listening to a formal talk and is unable to question the speaker, he will nonetheless “talk back” internally by an examination of the terminology employed.

2. The tendency to Succumb to irrational influences.

Most of us are creatures of habit and impulse. We vote for a candidate because of the way we feel about him rather than from conclusions drawn from critical thought. So it is with the food we eat, the books we read, and the judgments we pass upon our fellows. Much of our conduct is irrational. It is human to give in to the irrational influences. Pride, vanity, desire for security, and the need for acceptance are some of the reasons for this. Critical thinking will change one’s life. Sometimes it separates one from his former associates and subjects him to scornful denunciation. As one discovers new truths through courageous thinking he soon learns to his dismay that most people resent excellence. He will be criticized for getting ahead. Either he is an egghead or education has ruined him. He will find that even people who claim to be friends of progress and comrades in the search for truth will often be anti-intellectual in spirit and lovers of mediocrity. We must face the hard fact that it is difficult to stand alone. It is so difficult that most people are afraid to think. After all, it is so often the case that if one thinks he must also starve!

It is this predicament that P. A. Sorokin describes in The Crisis of Our Age when he points to the artist as one who cannot be truly creative in our sensate culture because he is forced to satisfy customers who are more interested in being amused than in being challenged to think.

If a contemporary artist does not wish to starve, he cannot create eternal values, independent of the fads and fancies of the moment. He is necessarily a slave of market demands, “manufacturing” his commodities in response to these demands. Such an atmosphere is highly unfavorable to the creation of authentic and permanent values.

Sorokin believes that our way of life has become so vain that the creative arts are aimed almost exclusively at utility, relaxation, diversion, amusement, stimulation of jaded nerves or sexual excitation. The labor of one’s hands and heart, therefore, is often divorced from truly cultural values and instead of elevating society it sinks to the level of the common herd. Human thought is thus prostituted as a commercial amusement commodity that ,is controlled by the fashion of the moment. Religious and moral values are disregarded because they are rarely as amusing and entertaining as wine, women and song.

It is easier to teach people to reason correctly in the physical sciences than in the social sciences. This is because of the tendency to yield to irrational influences. We have few prejudices in the fields of mathematics, biology, chemistry, and physics. But in such areas as education, sociology, religion, politics, and psychology the story is different for here are prejudices and passions are involved. The biologist will have no difficulty in setting forth the theory of photosynthesis, for he is not touching upon any biases of the social group. But let him deal with some of the implications of the theory of evolution and the situation will be different, because he then gets into an area where religious presuppositions make it very difficult for some students to be as objective as they were when they studied photosynthesis. A group of students make it fine in a study of trigonometry insofar as objectivity is concerned, but when they study birth control or political parties in a sociology class the approach may be less objective.

One goal, therefore, should be to develop those habits of clear thinking that will enable us to be as dispassionate when we discuss religion and politics as when we talk about neutrons and electrons, or as much so as is humanly possible. It is fear or uncertainty that causes one to become impassioned when certain questions are raised concerning a Roman Catholic being elected president of the United States.

3. The inability to grasp the essential structure of an argument.

The first weakness to overcome is the inability to distinguish between an argument on the one hand and exposition on the other. It is not right to conclude that people are in an argument just because they are having a disagreement. They could fuss around with each other all day and never make an argument. Look at the following for example:

It is obvious that the Administration is weary and incompetent. Anyone can see the extent of its inefficiencies. No one can doubt that it is corrupt, tired, staggering, and ready to collapse.

Here we have a series of statements that may be called exposition, but they do not form an argument.

It is not uncommon for a man to make a lengthy speech in behalf of some worthy (or unworthy) cause and yet never make an argument. If we learn to think correctly we must be able to recognize an argument when we see one, and on the other hand we must be able to expose some discourse as mere exposition rather than argumentation. An argument is discourse that contains at least two statements, one of which is asserted to be a reason for the other. The example given above does not do that, but if there were other statements giving a reason for the assertions it would then be an argument. Even when discourse forms an argument it does not mean that the reason or reasons given are sound. So we have valid and invalid arguments, a differentiation that involves us in the structure of an argument. But the first task is to be able to see the argument; then comes the testing process that determines its validity.

It is not correct to refer to an argument as true or false. The statements that make up the argument are true or false, but the argument itself is valid or invalid. There is no such thing as a false argument. Only statements are true or false. It is important to keep in mind that all the statements in an argument can be true and yet the argument be invalid; and all the statements can be false and yet the argument be valid! The reason for this is that truth has to do with the relationship between what is said and the real world outside the argument, while validity has to do with the structure of the argument, its premises and conclusion.

It is hard for some people to believe that all the statements in an argument can be true and yet the argument be invalid. Suppose I wish to prove that rain is water, and so I argue: Rain freezes and so does water, therefore rain is water. All the statements are true, but the argument is fallacious. Or it may be that the premises (statements in the argument) are false and yet the argument valid, such as: All lobsters are dogs; all poodles are lobsters; therefore all poodles are dogs. Certainly lobsters are not dogs and poodles are not lobsters. Yet the conclusion is true and the argument valid!

The point in all this is that we have two ways to examine an argument. If it is a good argument it must be valid and its statements must be true. It is true that rain is water, but the above argument does not prove it, even though its statements are all true. The argument about the lobsters is valid because it is structurally sound, so in this case the attack must be made upon the falsity of the statements. So when I look at an argument I should ask myself two questions: Are the statements true? Is the argument valid (structurally sound)? The argument must pass both these tests to be a sound argument.

It would be necessary to take a lengthy course in logic for one to understand fully why an argument is valid or invalid, but we can include here two rules that will be helpful in studying the structure of an argument.

(1) Get to the point of the argument by looking for the logical indicators.

When one knows that he is faced with an argument and not merely exposition, his next step is to determine the point of the argument. Look for the conclusion first of all. To do this it is necessary to distinguish between statements that are reasons and statements that are supported by reasons. Any statement that is supported by reasons is the conclusion. The clues to watch for are the logical indicators—such terms as therefore, so, because, for, in view of, leads me to believe that, proves that, indicates that, consequently, you see that, etc.

Think of these logical indicators as flashing red lights. When a man says therefore or so or some such term you have your clue as to what conclusion he is drawing from the reasons he has given.

(2) Break the argument down so that you can see if there is relevance between the statements and the conclusion.

If I argue that a man will not make a good policeman because of the way he parts his hair, you would have the right to question the relevance between the conclusion and the reason. If one contends that a certain candidate should not be elected president of the United States because he is a Roman Catholic, it is only right that he should show the relevance between the conclusion and the reason. Sometime the relevance is there but not apparent. It could be argued that what a man believes is relevant to his fitness to be president. But it is this connection that makes an argument valid. If the relevance cannot be established between the reason and the conclusion, the argument is worthless.

A friend of mine contends that he can “witch” water and thus find the best place to dig a well. He assures me that by taking a forked stick and walking over the ground to be witched with the stick held parallel to the ground, the stick will be pulled toward the ground at the point where there is water. He tells me that the pull is sometime so strong that he cannot hold the stick in its place. Another man who believes this asserts that dark-complected people are the only ones that can “witch” for water successfully. Whether good or bad, this is an argument. But I question its soundness because I can see no relevance between the forked stick and the water vein—and certainly none between the complexion of skin and the ability to find sites for wells.

But the logician must remember that he can be fooled on this matter of relevance. Lionel Ruby in The Art of Making Sense asks this question: If a historian is investigating the causes of the downfall of the Roman Empire, should he note the building of the Great Wall of China? He shows that while there is no apparent relevance between the Wall and the fall of the Empire, history proves that there is indeed a connection. The Huns moved against China and were thwarted by the Wall, so they turned to the West and finally contributed mightily to the fall of the Empire. So validity is dependent upon relevance. To be conscious of this is a basic principle of critical thinking.

When one can recognize an argument, distinguish between its statements and conclusion, and then examine the relevance between these parts, he is learning to think logically. Add to this an understanding of the terms used and the ability to handle all subjects without passion and prejudice and you have the essentials of being a critical thinker.

MISTAKES TO AVOID: A STUDY OF FALLACIES

Most tough disciplines involve training in what not to do, for it is oftentimes more rewarding to warn against the obstacles than it is to lay down abstract principles. In this section we will learn how to think correctly by looking at the mistakes to be avoided.

1. The Fallacy of Special Pleading.

In his book on Practical Logic Monroe C. Beardsley identifies this fallacy as existing “when a person, in a dispute, attacks his opponent’s position on the basis of a general principle that applies equally well against his own position.” His illustration is of the politician who proposes his own bill for relieving the housing shortage, but then argues against another bill on the ground that “nothing can be done about the problem.”

As is true throughout logic there is a moral issue here, for special pleading is a form of dishonesty. To be fair we must apply the same rules to ourselves that we apply to others. We all want to be an exception to the rule. There is a religious denomination in America that shows such concern for the colored races of Africa that they send missionaries to educate them, and yet in their own colleges in this country they do not permit Negroes to matriculate. If the principle upon which they act in their African work were applied to their work at home, then they would be obligated to educate Negroes in America as well as those in Africa.

The problem here is getting the principle out in the open so that one can see that it applies to himself as well as the other person. The bard of Scotland warned us that it is difficult to see ourselves as others see us. If religious persecution is wrong, it is just as wrong when the Protestants do it as when the Roman Catholics do it. If ignorance is an argument against being allowed to vote, then it applies to whites as well as Negroes.

2. The Fallacy of Argumentum ad Hominem.

Literally this means “an argument directed to the man.” It seeks to turn attention from the argument to the person who is making it. If I cannot meet a man’s argument by evidence to the contrary, I may, if I am dishonest, attack the man instead of the argument. Lionel Ruby cites a good illustration of this by way of Schopenhauer’s view of women. In his Essay on Women the German philosopher argues that women are interested only in acquiring husbands and to this end they develop their real interests: in cosmetics, in clothing, and in jewelry to the exclusion of all higher interests. Schopenhauer further asserts that women are undersized, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged. They have no real interest in anything except becoming sexually attractive to men and any supposed interest on their part in poetry, music, or art is but a mockery. On and on he goes in his tirade against women.

The point is this: How do women react to these remarks? Usually they will attack the philosopher as having a warped view of life and especially of sex, and of being a failure in his own efforts of romance. Few women will take his remarks and analyze them critically. Is it true that women are short-legged? Is there evidence that women are anti-cultural and interested only in being sexually attractive? One commits the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem when he ignores the argument and attacks the man who made it. Even if a man is a horse thief he may still make a sound argument.

This is probably the most common of all the fallacies and one of the most difficult to expose. It can be very subtle. One commits this fallacy, for example, when he labors to prove his opponent inconsistent. Suppose John argues that it is wrong to take life and that Bob replies by saying, “But you think it is right to kill animals for food!” Bob violates the law of reason by ignoring the real issue and turning to John’s inconsistency. John may well be wrong in not thinking of killing animals as also evil, and this is all Bob could hope to prove. The issue is whether the taking of life is evil. What John may believe that would appear contradictory to that proposition is beside the point. Leave John out of it and deal with the argument.

3. The Fallacy of Begging the Question.

This fallacy is sometime called arguing in a circle. It is guilty of assuming the thing to be proved. This is done by repeating in the conclusion what has already been assumed in one of the premises. For example, one says that Mohammed is divinely inspired, and when asked why, replies that the Koran says he is. “But how do you know the Koran is inspired,” he is asked. He answers, “Because it was written by Mohammed who is divine.” In substance this is arguing that Mohammed is divinely inspired because he is divinely inspired!

You sometime hear it said that no educated man believes in the devil. You may answer by pointing to a friend of yours who is a college graduate as one who does indeed believe in the devil. “Ah, that guy isn’t educated, for if he were he would not be so superstitious as to believe in the devil,” is the reply. This form of begging the question is called “argument by definition” because it assumes the thing to be proved in the way the terms are used. If I say, “There are no hypocrites in the church,” and then you say, “How wrong you are, for there is ole Jack Hardtack. the biggest hypocrite in town, in the church.” I reply, “That can’t be true, for God accepts no one as a true church member unless he is sincere.” I beg the question by using “church” to mean an institution that no one can enter who is not sincere, while the term is usually understood to refer to something most anyone can belong to on his own volition, sincere or otherwise.

I recall many arguments with some of my Southern Baptist friends on the impossibility of apostasy or perseverance of saints. They would argue adamantly that a child of God cannot fall from grace. I would respond by pointing to several instances in the scriptures where saints did apostatize. My opponents would invariably contend that the cases I cited were not truly saved people but only superficial believers. On and on we would go with no possible chance of getting together, for regardless of what case I might present as an example of falling from grace, they would claim the person was not truly saved to start with. This is “argument by definition” in that it defines a child of God or a saint as one who cannot fall from grace. If one falls, then he is not a child of God. It begs the question in that it assumes the thing to be proved. In such a situation the only alternative is to seek an understanding of the terms employed.

Loaded terms are question-begging devices. When an ad reads, “All thinking men are agreed that …” or “Every schoolboy knows …” or “It is beyond dispute that …”, it is a basic assumption that is in need of proof. Suppose it is true that “five New York doctors” say so and so? Just what does this prove? Such terms as true, sound, good, loyal and real are often “loaded” with unproven assumptions. A “real politician” is so often the man who is on our side. “A loyal preacher” is one who walks according to our own party standards.

Then there are interrogative forms of question-begging, the most famous of which is, “Have you quit beating your wife?” The Bible contains them: “Can anything good come out at Nazareth?”, “What would this babbler say?” and “Is it right to pay tribute to Caesar or not?”

4. The Fallacy of Black or White.

This is the error of supposing a question has but two sides, that it must be black or white, ignoring the possibility of there being varying shades of gray. John and Mary divorce. Some say it is all John’s fault, others that it is all Mary’s fault. Both views could be wrong. It could be the peculiar circumstance of their religion, education, health, finances or family background. Or it could be that both are to blame. Man’s mind tends to think in opposites. He must train himself to do “in-between” thinking. Few things are wholly good or bad. To be able to see the gray between black and white is a mark of maturity. Superficial thinkers who seek security above all else dislike the uncertainty of grayishness. If they can be white, completely right and secure, while their opponents are black, completely wrong and insecure, then their little lives are happier.

5. The Fallacy of Equivocation.

When in the course of an argument a person uses a term to mean one thing at first, and then changes the meaning of the term in such a way that the conclusion seems to follow when it does not, he is equivocating. This fallacy is more commonly called quibbling. Here is an example:

“Man is the highest being on the evolutionary ladder, according to biology. That’s why women are inferior—because they are not men.” Man is first used generically, meaning the human race; then as the discourse continues the same term is restricted to the male sex. In so simple an expression as “Business is business” or “Boys will be boys” there is the fallacy of equivocation. Business can mean buying and selling and even cut-throat competition, but one equivocates when he makes a switch in meaning unjustifiably. Boys can refer to normal male children or to brats, but one equivocates if he uses the term both ways in the same context. Another example, borrowed from Monroe Beardsley’s book on Logic, is especially interesting:

It is certainly not impartial to take sides in a dispute. Yet the Cornmission decided in favor of the company, and fined the union. How can it claim to be impartial? And how can we respect a biased judge?

The argument is that the Commission is not impartial, but in the course of the argument the term changes its meaning. First it is used to mean one who refrains from judgment, which is an odd meaning. Then impartial is used to mean making a fair judgment, which is more normal. The way to handle this fallacy is to notice the change in meaning and then mark each distinct meaning with a distinct term. For example take this equivocation: “Being blind, he could not see: therefore, he could not see my point.” When you note the switch of meaning and mark each meaning with a distinct term, you will have: “Being blind, he had no eyesight; therefore he could not comprehend my point.” By this device the equivocation becomes obvious and the argument is exposed as ridiculous.

6. The Fallacy of the Single Factor.

This is the fallacy of failing to consider all the facts. It is akin to the fallacy of black or white in that it is too confined in its area of consideration. It is an error to attribute to an incident or a result a single factor as the reason or cause when there may be other factors involved. If I say, “Truman won the 1948 presidential election because of Dewey’s ‘me too’ speeches,” I may be wrong even when right. That is, it may be true that Dewey’s “me too” speeches was one of the reasons, and yet I am wrong in not considering the other factors which may exist. “The Red Sox finished in fourth place because Ted Williams was out of the lineup.” Williams’ absence was no doubt one reason, but were there not other reasons? Watch this fallacy! Most of us commit it daily.

7. The Fallacy of False Cause.

We commit this fallacy whenever we argue that since a certain event was preceded by another event, the preceding event was therefore the cause of it. A black cat runs in front of the car. At the next crossing there is an accident. Therefore, the black cat caused the accident. A is followed by B, therefore A is the cause of B. A man goes away to Harvard and comes home a liberal. Therefore, Harvard caused it. When A is followed by B, A may be the cause, or one of the causes, but it may not be. A man walks home in the rain and the next day he comes down with a cold. It may have been caused by his contact with diseased people on the elevator at the office building some days before.

8. The Fallacy of Appeal to Revered Authority.

This is more delicate to handle since it is often justifiable to appeal to authorities. Part of scholarly research is to discover what great thinkers have said. But something is wrong when an argument depends wholly upon the revered reputations of those who have believed it. The theory of transmutation of species is a case in point. If there is a great array of big names in science who believe the theory, this point alone should cause one to give the idea his most careful consideration, and yet this alone does not prove it. Even scientists can be wrong. If one finds himself overwhelmed by the world of scholarship, he should be very cautious indeed in arguing to the contrary. Yet he may be right and the scholars wrong. It has happened. So perhaps we can think of this fallacy as the failure to keep the authorities in their proper place. We should always reserve the right to re-open the issues that the scholars think they have settled.

Another form of this error is to suppose that the past is canonized, that things were better “in the good old days” than they are now. One man contends that watermelons were bigger and better when he was a boy than they are now. “A kid today doesn’t know what a sweet melon tastes like,” he says.

9. The Fallacy of False Generalization.

It is fallacious to argue from a general rule to a special case, or from a special case to a general rule, and to fail to consider the special circumstances which may change the applicability of a general rule in a given case. Just because a vacation in Florida is ideal for most people it does not mean that it is ideal for the Murphy family. The circumstances may be different in their case. The meat that is so good for most people may be poison to some. A college education is just the thing for many young people, but it may prove injurious to some.

Washington, D. C. may have been able to handle the integration problem with a minimum of difficulty, but this does not mean that Mobile can. Democracy may be the very best form of government for the United States, but it may not be for Japan.

This fallacy centers in the failure to judge each person and each situation in the light of the special circumstances and differences. It is an error to label and categorize people arbitrarily. A man is not big and tall just because he comes from Texas, nor is he a segregationist because he lives in Mississippi. A man may be a Presbyterian without believing everything in the Westminister Confession, or he may be a Roman Catholic and still believe in birth control.

10. The Fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion.

This common fallacy occurs whenever we advance as an argument something that has nothing to do with the point at issue. The issue of anarchy was irrelevant to the charge of murder in the case of Sacco and Vanzetti. If one argues that the American League has better ball players than the National because it is wealthier, he commits this fallacy.

If you make an argument for a pension for the aged, and I respond by showing that it is to your advantage to so argue since you have elderly parents, I am violating the law of reason, because whether your parents would or would not benefit from the pension is irrelevant to the argument you have made. I should deal with your argument and leave your parents out of it.

One can see that this fallacy is closely related to the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem and to the question of relevance, both of which we have considered.

These ten fallacies are only representative of the many departures from the rule of reason.

CONCLUSION

One wise thing said about our subject is that “Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large doses.” So perhaps we have covered enough for a first lesson. This chapter is only suggestive of what is involved in a study of critical thinking. If you should be encouraged to do more work in Logic, I would suggest that you start by reading The Art of Making Sense by Lionel Ruby (Keystone Books, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, $1.95) which may be ordered from the publication office of this quarterly.

_______________

Leroy Garrett is a professor of philosophy at MacMurray College and the Editor of this journal.