Being Logical A GUIDE to GOOD THINKING D. Q. Mclnerny nanpom wouse ibd new vorGopighs © 2008by DQ. Melee Aight memo a Peat Cay eae The Ramin Howse Plain Gon dis of wat ne, Ne am imei nC ow Hans anne eee nemo Metneny erg sinking. Melo I opis 2 Revsninge A Tout an thinking 1 Tie Tt dig by Mary. Wr Random Howse wel ade wantatandon cm IN MEMORIAM AUSTIN CLIFFORD McIweRw¥ and Vivian GeRTRUDE Rust MCINERNYPreface Locie 18 nov cleat and effective thinking. Fis «sci cence and an art. This book is intended to ineroduce readers to the eudiments of the scence as well asco the basic skill associated withthe a. We all Know people who are very bright but who do not always shine when i¢ comes to being logical. They have the ability co think logically that is, clearly and effeetively— bbuc that ability das not habieully manifest itself. The like- Tinood is that ic has sever been properly developed, pointing 1o a deficiency in thei education. Indeed, logic is the very backbone ofa true edueation, and yet ts seldom ‘aught as such in American schools, Tomy min ogi isthe missing piece ofthe American educational system, the ject that informs every other subject fom English to history to sience and math ‘Some readers, especially if this book represents their firs serious encounter with logie, might react sktcisly co ‘what appears to be an overly technical vocabulary, ort thePriface symbolic notation that logic makes frequent use of. Don’ te scared by initial impressions. Ihave madea concerted a rforte present whatever technical matters deal with here fuahich in any event are not all tha crying) i as simple and tincomplicated a way as possible. At the sime time, how: ner I have tsied £0 avoid lapsing into the simplistic, A SJumbed-dowen logic is not logic a all. Other readers might the puto by what they perceive tobe an emphasis upon che ‘vious do, i fact, place a gond deal of stress on the obvi- thin this book, and that is quite liberate, In ogi, a3 in tio: ie i he eons dat most often ears emphasizing ‘cause it so easily escapes our nodes. IFT have belabored ce fain points, and regularly opted forthe explicit over che implies because T adhere tthe time-honored ped obie principle tha ith always safes o assume as fete as possible Tose, taken as a whol, isa wide, deep, and wonder fully varied field, and I would be pleased if my readers a8 & + with this tle book, were moved result of their encounter become mote familie with i, However, my aim here is very nndest. This is neither a treatise in logical theory nora rex hook in logie—though I would noc be disppointed to learn that it proves useful inthe classroom. My governing pure pose was to write a practical guidebook, presenting he basi principles of logicina way cha saccesibleto chose who are Phenuntering ehe subject for the fist time. Being Logical Necks co produce practitioners, not theoreicians—people For whom knowing the principles of logic i in the service of being logical Preface In the hope of better serving the pracial ends ofthe book, I have adopted a somewhar infocmal style often ad: dressing the reader dcectly, and, inthe manner ofa curr or coach, sometimes assumingadistinetivelydiretive cone. L teat logic in five stages, represented bythe five pars ofthe ‘book, each successive stage building upon the one tha pre ceded it Par One is preparatory and deals with the proper frame of mind that must be established if logical thinking totake place a all, In Parts Two and Three, the hear ofthe book, we pass into the realm of logie proper. Part Two ex plains the foundational uths char govern Tot while Pare Three focuses on argument—the sion of logit thinking, Ip Part Fou, I discuss atiudes and fiames of mind tha promote ilogica thinking, Finally, Part Five concentrates on the particulars of illogical chinking— the fallacies, A final word, of admiration and appreciation. for a sparkling litle book called The Blamens of Sin, by Wiliam Strunk, Je, and E, B, White, which was the inspiration for Being Logie What U have managed co accomplish hese is no ‘match for the unique achievement of Sunk and White, but hope that Being Lopcal might to some degree succeed in doing forthe esuse of good thinking what The Klement: of ‘Sie has done for tha of good writing. My earnest wish is that cis book may succeed in convincing its readers of the intrinsic imporeance of logie—and that it engender in cher fan appreciation for the priceless satisfaction which in- cevitably accompanies the happy state of being logicalContents Prifae Pant ONe-—Paseaniwo ite MIND FoR L 1. Be ttontoe 2. Gat the Bats Straight 5. leat andthe Objet of Ideas 4 Be Mindje of th Origin of ideas S Mach Ideas te Facts 2 Match Nord Ideas Eifecive Commaicaton 8 Avid Vague and Ambiguous Language 9. Aevid Bessie Language Wo. Taeh Pant Two—TwE Baste Princir.as oF Loate 1, Fira Pinsiptes 2. Real Gray Areae, Mewufacared Gray Ares 3, There's an Explanation for Bveryihing Econtealy i 14, Dor Stop Shore in te Search for Cases 5 Ditnguish Among Conse 6, Define Your Terms 1. The Caegorical Statement & Generalising Par Tuner —AnouMENT: THE LANGUAGE oF LOGIC 1 Fewnding a0 Argument 1 The Move from Uaicersal to Partcalar 3 The Move from Particular to Universal 4 Predicaion Waaice Stotoments Mating Comparisons Comparison oud Argument S. Sound Argoment 2. Conditional Argument 10, Syllogitie Argument 1. The Teath of Promises 12. The Reeoawey of Premises 13, Statements of Fact, Stasement of Vale 14, Angumontrioe Form 15. Conclusions Mast Reflect Quantity of Premises 16. Conclusions Mass Reflect Quai of Promises Ti Inductive Argument 18, Assessing Argument 19. Contracting am Argoment Pant Foun —Tue Sounces oF TLLoGrCsL THINKING Skeptic 2. Beasive Agaesticom 5. Gyicim and Nate Optimism 4 Narrow-Mindedness 5: Emotion and Argument 6 Phe Reason for Reasoning 7 Argumentation ls Net Quarveling 8 The Limis of Sincerity Par Five—The Princieat Foams oF TutocieaL Tinks 1. Denying the Antecdent 2. Affirming the Consequent 2. The Undistribted Middle Term 4. Bgatoocation 5. Begging the Question 6 Pale Assumptions 1. The Straw-Max Fallacy 4. Using aud Nbusing Tradition 9, Teo Wrongs Dow's Mae a Right 10. The Democratic Fellacy UI. TheAd Hominem Fallacy 12. Sabuitatng for the Borer of Reasoe 13. The Uses ond Abies of Expertise. 14. The Quantifying f Quality 15. Consider Mors Than the Soarce 16, Stepping Short at Analysis 17. Reductoniow 18, Miscasifiaron 19. The Red Herring 20. Leagher as Dicersionary Tactic 21. Tears as Diversionary Tactic 22.n Inability t Disprove Doet Not Prove 23. The Fale Dilemma 24. Post Hoe Ergo Propcer Hoe 97 os 04 105 106 109 nz m2 nn 14 ns ns 16 M7 120 120 rz ma nz 124 Ls Ls128 Aftersord ut PART ONE Preparing the Mind Sor LogicBx: Logical presupposes our having a sensitivity co lan- guage and a knack for its effective use, for logic and language are inseparable, It alo presupposes our having 2 healthy respect for the firm factualness of the world in which we lve fo logic is about talc. Finally being logiea! rely awareness of how the facts cha are out presupposes a ideas relate co the fats tha are the object in he word, for Togie is aboue cruth, In his frst pat ofthe book T wil dis cuss those aude, pints of view, and practical procedures ‘whose adoption prepares the mind fora successful engage sent with lie J, Be Attentive “Many mistakes in reasoning are explained by the fact that we ate not paying sulicent attention to the situation in which we find ourselves. ‘This is especialy «rue in familiar situations. That very familiarey auses us to make earcess judgments about facts right before our eyes. We misread a ‘Situation because we ae skimming, when what we should be doing is perusing i. Often, we assume cha familie st uation will be buca repeat performance of a similar situation we've experienced befor. But, in the strictest sense, there ae no repeat performances. Every situation is unique, and we muse be alert 10 is uniqueness “The phrase “to pay atention” is telling, It reminds usgical i nat auention coses something, Arention demands an a doer encepetc response to every stuaon to the Penns veal hinge that make up the situation, Tis impass passive atthe same ime. Don't ten. Tian yourself co focus he ignored, for iis places. bie tobe truly attentive and just lok, see. Don’t just hea, fon deus, The lite things are nor £0 just ce Hide dings that lead us co the Big ings 2, Get the Facts Straight ‘A acts something mate or done. Tas clear objestives- fs Te is something we respond toas having. tatu al its own, es nagging persiseent hiton, and can be nasty ignored Tee are two basic types of objective fact things and seni anima, Yes? events. A “thing” isan actully existing erste, or mineral. ‘The White House isan example of the ea eye of fact, and che assassination of Abraham Lincoln aruke second The fis eype is more basi than the second ecause events are made wp of chngs or of the actions of er isto be held atthe White House, Suc ana rcnuld not take place were it not forthe eNsteness fr ana foremont oF the face chars the White House, and i faces a well In der eo establish the Fee eonerete things need £0 demands 1208 things. A state din coundess other nines of an event, any number of bbe appealed Ti determine the realty of dis pay ica visit actually exists it mst be place wo be accessible 10 YOX Take the face that stings all you where, and, assuming i ou can verify its factalness by diet observation. case of the White House, To ascertain its being ft, rather than purely imaginary, you ean travel co Washington, D: and thete sce the White House with your own eyes. Thac i the most direc and relisble way establish is factuaness Bur you could aso sely an indirect evidence: For example, by eaking the word of a tustworthy eyewitness that the White House is indoed in Washington, D.C, Or you could decide that photographic evidence is suficient to establish fewalness Bue what abou an event like Lincula’s assassination? We say thar is Fact, What isthe justifieation for that claim? Iisan event thats over and done with, and cher are no i= ing witnesses to the event whom we might consult. Obvi= cusly, we did not ourselves witness the event, s0 direct ‘evidence is out ofthe question, In this ease our approach will be co aequaine ourselves with a variety of things chat serve as inditecc evidence of the eveat. For example, we e repos, the death certificate, ee), newspaper accounts, photographs, men cts, diaries, and items in the Congressional Record, all of ‘which are facts in their own right and whose only reasonable explanation is the fasualness of Lincoln assussination, On the busis ofthe fatualness ofthese things, we establish che factualness of che event. And we thus establish a historical fact Facts can abo be thought of as objective or subjective oth things and events are objective facts. They exis the would consult official documents (poli public domain and ate in principle accesible to all. A sub- jective fact is one thats limited 1 the subject experiencing it. headache woul be an example ofa subjective fact. fTBeing Lerical sun the one experiencing the headache, then I have diect evidence ofits facualness. Buc if cis you experiencing the headache, [can establish its factualness only indie. 1 tblishing ‘word that you have a headache. snus ake yo he reality of subjective facts depends entirely on the tus Worthiness of those who cain to be experiencing then Ty sum up how we get the fats straight: If given fet jv an actually existing thing to which we have access then the sures way to establish its Factuanes is wo pur ourselves in its presence. We then have direct evidence of it. Mi we Cannot establish farualness by direet evidence, We must figorsly text the authenteity and reliability of whatever nso dha, on the bass of that indirect evidence we rely upon vreidence, we can confidently establish the factuaness of she thing There are only a very limited number of significant public events which we can experience directly. This means hat in almost every ease, we must rely on indirect ev ‘once. ln establishing the facualness of events by indirect. tvidence, we must exercise the sume kind of care we doin ‘wtblishing the Faccualness of “things” by inditect evi ‘ence, Ie all comes down to the authenticity and reliability four sources. "A subjective fact, tothe subject experiencing itis self ‘evident under normal circumstance. However, though such fochanisns as self-delusion oF raionalization, a person Could ail ogee straight a fact even about hime Because the establishment of the factualness of 2 sub- jective fact penaining to another person depends entirely ste trustworthiness ofthat person, you must Fist insofar Preparing the Mind Jor Logic asics possible, establish the trustworthiness ofthe person in question 3. Ideas and the Objects of Ideas Every idea in the mind is ultimately waceable a thing, ot things, acually existing ina world that is independent of and apar from the mind, An idea's the subjective evocation of an objective fae, Clear ideas, chen, are ideas cha fh fully reflect she objective ordr fom which they derive. Un clear ideas, conversely, fe those chat give us a distoted representation of the objective world. “Though the contol we have over our ideas is not abe solu, iis eal, This means that we are no helpless in che face of unclear ideas, To ensure tha out ideas are clear, We ras vigilamy attend to the relationship between any siven idea and its object. eis strained relationship ifthe connection becween the idea and is objects tenuous, chen we are dealing with an unclear idea, Tis wiong to suppose that because we Koow things in the world only through our ideas, itis onty our ideas which 'we really know. Our ideas are che means, no the ends, of our Knowledge. They link uso the world. [they are clear ideas, the links are sttong, The most efficient way to clanify our ideas isto lok through them tothe objects they represent. 4, Be Mindful of the Origins of Ideas Well tend to favor our own ideas, whichis natural enough. ‘They are after all, in a sense our very vn babies, the con7 Being Logics! ceptions of ove minds. But conception i possible in the thinking subject only because of the subject’ encounter twit ene world, Our ideas owe thelr existence, ulimatey, 0 Things ouside and independent of che mind co which they sefer: objective fats ‘Our ideas ave clear, and our understanding of them is clear, only to the exten that we Keep constant tabs on the Things to which they efer, The focus must always be on che ‘viinatng sources of oUr ideas in the abjecive work, We To noc really understand our ov ideas if we suppose cher to be self-generating shat is, aoe owing their existence £0 ‘exiciental eats. “The more we focus on our ideas in a way tha systema re origins, the more unreliable ically ignores their object those ideas become. The healthy bond that bind together the subjective and objective onders are pur under great ‘train, and if we push the process to0 far, che bonds may Ireak, Then we have effectively divorced ourselves fiom the objective word, Instead of seeing the world as itis, we Noe projected work one that is not presented our minds be which is dhe product ofour minds When we speak of “establishing fat,” we do no fer to establishing the existence of an idea in ehe mind. The fas we have seen, is «subjective fat, but idea in the mind, the kind of face we are concerned with establishing isan ob jective fact."To do so, we must lok beyond our iets 10 their sources in the objective world, establish a fact f5uc- ‘anally asceretn that there i fora particular idea I have in hind, a corresponding reality extemal to my mind. For in tance, I have a parcicolar idea in my mind, which T abel Proparing the Mind for Logic ° “eat” Comesponding «0 that idea are actualy existing things in che extramental wold ealled “eats.” But I ould have another ide in my mind, which [abel “eencaur” but for which no corresponding fut can he found in the exta- ‘mental world, Fall tha, che idea of Yeencaur™ isa subjec- tive fact, since it relly exissas an idea in my mind 5. Match Ideas to Facts ‘There ate three basic components to human knowledge: fist, an objective face ea cat: second, the idea of a cat ‘third, che word we apply othe idea, allowing ws co commu nicate itr others (eg, in English, “eat”. Ie all sacs wich the eat, If there were no real eats, there would be no idea bout ther, and ehere would be no word for the ide. Ihave bbeen stressing the general point Uhat ideas (subjective real ties) are clear or sound to the extent that they elect objec- tive relies. And we have said that all ideas have theie ulimace source in the objective world. Now we must look more closely at how ideas relate to the objective word, for the celation is not always simple, Next, we must address the © bad ideas possible? Sometimes there is a drectcorelation beeween an idea ‘question: How a and an objective Fat. Example: che idea of eat. We will all this a imple” idea. Corresponding to my idea of eat is a single, particular sre of entity in che extameatal world — ‘ha furry, pursing creature which in English we name a cat. In dealing wih simple ideas iis eatvely easy totes their reliably, because we need only refer tone thing. My idea ‘of eats clear and sound if fers tan actual eat10 Being Logical We wil call “compen” ideas those for which there is 0 simple one-to-one correspondence berween idea and thing fpondence is one co many. There is m0re Here the comes ng source fr this kind of idea in the than a single origin Ubjective word. Lets fake the idea of democracy. 1s it a hear ora sound one? It isa least potentially Teis a cleat of snd idea o dhe excent that We are able to (eats i 0 che Shjecive world Bu there are aay hing he oben of the spent hat go together ro compose che sich meaning rent democracy: pessons, vents, constitutions exisltive pets, pst instictions, present inscizations IF my idea of arceaocracy is going co be communicable to other, ie must fective sae ofthe persons who nourish those ideas. Pad endo not ust happen. We ae responsible for them. They enue from carelessness on obF par, when we Cease £0 PAY ae Preparing the Mind for Lose sufficient attention 40 the relational quality of ideas, on, worse, are a product of the willful rejection of objective facts. 6. Match Words to Ideas [As we have seen, frst comes the ching, then the idea, then the wotd.Irourideas ae sound tothe extent chat they faith fully represen the thing, they wil be clealy communicable ‘only if we tothe them in words thac accurately signify them Iieas as such are not communicable from one mind to an- other They have tobe carefully ited 10 words, so that che words might communicate then fathully. Putcing the right word to an idea isnot an automatic process, and sometimes ican be quite challenging, We have all had the experience fof knowing whae we want to say but noe being able o come up with dhe words fori ute that our words are adequate to the ideas they seek to convey? ‘The process is essentially the How do we same asthe one we follow when confieming the clarity and soundness of our ideas: We must go back eo che sources of the ideas. Often we cannot come up with the right wou for an idea because we don’ have firm grasp om the idea ise Usually, when we elatfy the ide by checking ic against is source inthe objective word, the right word will come tos. ‘Sometimes these isa perfect match berween word and idea, which would mean a peefece match berween word and thing, for if the ides is clear it faithfully represents the thing, and if the word accurately expresses the idea, it ‘Would at che same time faithfully iearify the ching. ThisBeing hose! ‘commonly happens with simple ideas. IFT say, “The monus vend the monumene co which Frefer i in T have the perfect match for Te gets more compli- eas, bu the ge" face granite, hen in “granite the idea and the thing i represents fated when we are dealing wich complex Je remains the same: In order co guarantee sreoey in your use of words, go back wo the objective facts that ae che foundational explanations for words che efor 0 come up with words chat aprately con re purpose should always be this: 0 80 ‘eral princi vey ideas our uli shape ovr language things atually are—objeesive cea: hati eommunicatest0 others the Wa Te is not enough chat, Tanguag be satisfied with ideas as such bat wit clear and anu ideas Let us say [fervently hod vo che ral existence xt Lalliput and have al sorts of ideas about it.I may be able vi com up ith seads of words that acuraely convey those ons ro you, but all chose words dois eveal the tae of my nen Thex do aut reveal the stae ofthe work. They deal tnth subjective reality, aot adjective reality 7. Effective Communication Language and logic are inextricably Wihee ow that i 0 becomes clear when we recall che rea 1e word. Although itis dis- cems possible that we bound up with each tionship beeween the idea and ch puted poine among the experts, it aanevol an idea inoue mind without having precise word = ping co attempe to communi for it In any event, we 9 ro can ita o others, itis imperaive that we express it By 2 cont And as we have seen, the enter the ft between word Praparing the Mind for Log in and idea, the learer and more effective the communication of he idea ‘Marching words to ideas isthe firs and most basic step in communication, ‘The next step is putting ideas sogether to form coherent statements. IFT sid to you “dog” of “eat” ‘your response would be expectant, Waiting to hear more. You would wonder, What about dogs or eats? ‘Through the words I'm speaking, you know the ideas I'm dealing with, bc you don'e know what F intend to do with those ideas Fm simply “saying” che ideas; Pm not saying anything about them, We say something about ideas when we pu chem o- ether to form statements that can be responded to afiems- tively oF negatively. Notice thar if someone simply says “dog.” there would got be much sense in responding with “That's true” o¢ “That's alse.” Buc if someone says some= thing abouca dog—"The dogisin che garage"—then such a response would be appropriate. “Statement” has 3 spetial meaning in togic, Iisa linguistic expression to which the response of ether “uc” or “alse” is appropriate Words have been called the building blocks of language, bucicis the stafemen tha loge stares wit, for ics only atthe level of the statement cha che question of euch or falsity is ineroduced, and logic is all about establishing what is crue ough enough determining whether a sttement is tue or fake when that statement is clearly underscood. Bus if we have difficulty understanding what a statement i acrempe- ing t sy, hen our diculies are compounded, because We istinguishing it fom whats fale. ftean sometimes be have to figure out che meaning ofthe sarement before we can get on tothe main business of determining whether iisus Being uve or fuse. ‘Thus the imporeance of clea, effesive com Tris impossible o have clear commanication without lear thinking How can I give yous clear idea of something ny own mind? However, lea ideas ities not fst clear in have 4 pet lio not quaeantee clear communication, T may Bi fecaly pond idea of what I'm ying cosy, but ean suceeed in yetting my ideas acros clearly and effectively. ere are some basic guidelines for effective communi- Dorie assume your audience understands your meaning iyo don snake i explicit. “The more complica the more important this point is. We sometimes audience is aware of background informs- anding ofthe sub xed the subject matter deal with, s take it for ranted that an tion thacis necessary fra correct understa vee speaking on, but in fact che audience may DE ‘tei on. When in doubt, spell ‘quite innocent of cis informatio sarah barkground information Iis always better to ef 8 the side of saying Coo much than on the sid of saying roo lta Speakin competent ce cfaing sos cs in J “THE cr jin certain ideas together, but am intending in each ease Preparing the Mind for Ligie ‘you do not know how, ‘Phas is because 1 am not forming tenuine statements. need to speak in complete sentences: "The dog bit the earth,” “Falling stock prices in July de- pressed Julian,” “The building’ Indiana limestone facade was severely defieed by the vandals.” Donte eat evakuative statements a if they were statements of objective fact. “The Pearce Building is on the comer of Main and Adams” isastatement of objective fact, andassuch tis either tnue or fulse, “The Pearce Building statement, and as such it combines both subjective and ob- jy" nan evaluative jective elements. Evaluative statements do not lend them- Selves ta simple ue-orflse response. We must not invite ‘unwarranted responses to statements, which is just what we dowhen we attempt co pass off an evlacive statement asf i were a statement of abjectve fact. Tie statements of ob- jective fact are nt open co argument evaluative statements ate If want an evaluative statement o be accepted, I mast angue frie Avoid double negatives In Spanish, double negatives have the effect ofintensi fying the negative impor of a sentence. In English, double negatives cancel each other out, making the yentence alfir- ‘mative. This ean sometimes cause consion, since the sen- tence sounds negative but isin fact affirmative. To avoid that confusion, and for greater casey of expression, avoid double negatives. Instead of saying, “Tes noc unlikely tha she would be welcome,” say "She would be weleome.