politics

Logic 101

Prologue:

In response to requests from my logically-sound readers, you can now find links to Logic 102 (which covers the Argumentum ad Baculum, Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, and Argumentum ad Misericordium) and Logic 103 (which covers the rest of the common fallacies) here.

Actual Article Resumes Now:

In the early days of Newsvine (as in, waaay back at the beginning of the year) there was a fair amount of discussion here and there about the nature of the educational system in this country. One of the conclusions reached therein was that our country would be much healthier if logic were taught to all students. More recently, there was an upsurge of folks calling each other out on the use of logical fallacies, most particularly the use of “strawman arguments”. Here in the recent past, I have seen a repeated use of the argument that “if you do not support the extension of my intolerant beliefs into law, you are intolerant.” All of this put together has led me to the conclusion that we may be well overdue for a logic lesson.

Enter my Mom. Both my parents went to school for philosophy. Quite honestly, I tried like hell not to listen to any of it as I was growing up. While most kids were playing Monopoly with their folks, I got to play fun games like this:

“Their are three errors in this sentance.”

My mission was to find them. Good, fun, family times. But I digress…

My Dad died when I was twelve, but my Mom is still alive and kicking. She has never given up on her quest to teach me logic, and now that I have offspring, she is working on him, too. So she seemed the natural place to start when looking to get a grasp of the basics of logic.

Continue reading

A Quiet Moment For Iran

As public sentiment in the United States appears to be congealing about Iran, it would be worth taking a few minutes to quietly review the facts as they have been presented to us. It is entirely possible that our government knows more than they are telling, but as a nation ostensibly somewhat involved in the decisions of our leaders, we can only make a judgement as to whether an attack on Iran is acceptable based on the information we are given. If the information is not sufficient to justify an attack, then we should demand more proof before we give our consent. This, then, is an attempt to bring together the information available in one place, where it can easily be reviewed, in order to understand the choice we are being asked to make.The primary justifications we see for a pre-emptive strike on Iran are shockingly similar to the reasons we were given for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. First, there is the argument that Iran is a totalitarian regime, led by a madman, which has a history of abusing its people and has unpredictable and violent intentions toward the rest of the world (read as the United States and its allies). Secondly, there is the contention that Iran is creating weapons of mass destruction, in this case nukes, which it intends to use as a threat, and possibly as the central force in an attack against the United States and its allies.

Continue reading