Do Bees Make Honey?
If you were to ask me about informal logic, as a best friend recently did, I would say there is no such thing. However, I would understand that this imaginary thing you were asking about could be summed up in the title of this post. You probably want to know how to better understand everyday arguments. You might wonder about the underlying implications of statements and how to show their fallicy. You might even want to know how to win an argument with me. Well, I'm not going to tell you that. I like winning. But, as I promised to repay a friend for what turned out to be one of the best evenings I've had in many months, this is the first post to a 46 part series on "informal" logic.
To begin with, let's discuss why we're looking into to such a ludicrious concept as informal logic. Afterall, wouldn't it be better to learn about formal logic? The statement "bees make honey" is so much easier to pick apart in statement logic (SL). Watch;
B, where B = Bees make honey.
See, how easy is that to understand? It has a truth value, nothing more. It either is the case that bees make honey or it is not the case that bees make honey. Flip a coin, form a committee, or google it to determine the truth-value and you've done logic. In fact, in SL we can form any statement we need to analyze (after the first 26, we start putting up primes to keep from getting confused). But B doesn't get the whole story, does it?
So let's try monadic predicate logic;
Mb, where Mx = x makes honey and the constant b = bees.
Well, this also has a truth value, and it gives us a bit more to work with. We can determine if bees make honey, or perhaps only that something makes honey, or that the process of making honey is impossible. Taking another step would be diadic predicate logic;
Mbh, where Mxy = x makes y and the constant b = bees and the constant h = honey.
There, for the purposes of our statement, we have fully expressed what we desired. So, let's pick up a book on polyadic predicate logic (as we might come across some slightly more complex statements) and scrap the other 45 segments of this series.
Ok, so you won't let me get away with that. True, there are mathematical and sentential truths out there that could not have been explored without these forms of logic (plus modal concepts such as possibility and necessity), but that doesn't mean we have to deal with them. Afterall, the whole reason of translating any argument into a form of logic is just so that we may, in the end, re-translate it to the common tongue. So this is where we end up; informal logic, as I'll be using it, is understanding statements and arguments without tediously traslating, doing the sums, and re-translating in time to sweep the rug out from under your opponent (even if your opponent, as I often find with myself, is yourself). Sound fun? Good, then let us begin with the small and work our way up.
Concept 1: Statements, even statements as simple as bees make honey, are not atomic. You should think of them more as tiny little arguments in themselves.
In accepting any statement, consider how much ground you've just yielded. Though it is a bit silly, in accepting 'bees make honey' you are conceeding that there exist objects of the nature of 'bees'(P1), there is a process by which one substance is manipulated to produce another substance(P2), and there exists a substance of the nature of 'honey'(P3). In the tiny little argument form, you're allowing that (P1), (P2), (P3), therefore 'B'. Worse, you're saying P1-3 are all true.
Further, you have allowed that the primary substance remain unnamed. Do bees make honey out of fairy dust? Do they make it out of unicorn hair? Though it is not displayed in our informal logic, 'makes' is actually a triadic predicate; 'Mxyz' = "x makes y from z". In accepting such a simple statement as 'B', you are dealing with things both said and unsaid. And this is the case with all statements, even within the infinite regress that results once the sub-statements, such as P1-3, are called into question.
In a real life example, consider the cliche' lawyer's question to a defendent who's taken the stand: "Did you simply throw your clothes away or burn them after murdering Jones?" You can imagine the implications regardless of how the defendent answers the question. Eitherway, by even answering the question he has conceeded that the statement [T (thrown the clothes away after committing the crime) or B (burned the clothes after committing the crime)] is true. Following this, through disjunction elimination we know he either threw his clothes away or burned his clothes and this was done after he committed the crime. This is why cliche' lawyers get paid so much; they leave no room for the 5th.
But don't worry, this post was just the building blocks. You may have been wondering about arguments, but now may think statements are overwhelmingly complex. Well, there's truth to that. Luckily, once you understand why statements have such depth, you'll be well on your way to winning an argument against me. The next step will be taking a further look into the relationship between statements and arguments, which we refer to as associated conditionals. Till then, try undercutting a few statements for the fallicy...any good fundementalist website will do for practice.
Post Scripts...
To begin with, let's discuss why we're looking into to such a ludicrious concept as informal logic. Afterall, wouldn't it be better to learn about formal logic? The statement "bees make honey" is so much easier to pick apart in statement logic (SL). Watch;
B, where B = Bees make honey.
See, how easy is that to understand? It has a truth value, nothing more. It either is the case that bees make honey or it is not the case that bees make honey. Flip a coin, form a committee, or google it to determine the truth-value and you've done logic. In fact, in SL we can form any statement we need to analyze (after the first 26, we start putting up primes to keep from getting confused). But B doesn't get the whole story, does it?
So let's try monadic predicate logic;
Mb, where Mx = x makes honey and the constant b = bees.
Well, this also has a truth value, and it gives us a bit more to work with. We can determine if bees make honey, or perhaps only that something makes honey, or that the process of making honey is impossible. Taking another step would be diadic predicate logic;
Mbh, where Mxy = x makes y and the constant b = bees and the constant h = honey.
There, for the purposes of our statement, we have fully expressed what we desired. So, let's pick up a book on polyadic predicate logic (as we might come across some slightly more complex statements) and scrap the other 45 segments of this series.
Ok, so you won't let me get away with that. True, there are mathematical and sentential truths out there that could not have been explored without these forms of logic (plus modal concepts such as possibility and necessity), but that doesn't mean we have to deal with them. Afterall, the whole reason of translating any argument into a form of logic is just so that we may, in the end, re-translate it to the common tongue. So this is where we end up; informal logic, as I'll be using it, is understanding statements and arguments without tediously traslating, doing the sums, and re-translating in time to sweep the rug out from under your opponent (even if your opponent, as I often find with myself, is yourself). Sound fun? Good, then let us begin with the small and work our way up.
Concept 1: Statements, even statements as simple as bees make honey, are not atomic. You should think of them more as tiny little arguments in themselves.
In accepting any statement, consider how much ground you've just yielded. Though it is a bit silly, in accepting 'bees make honey' you are conceeding that there exist objects of the nature of 'bees'(P1), there is a process by which one substance is manipulated to produce another substance(P2), and there exists a substance of the nature of 'honey'(P3). In the tiny little argument form, you're allowing that (P1), (P2), (P3), therefore 'B'. Worse, you're saying P1-3 are all true.
Further, you have allowed that the primary substance remain unnamed. Do bees make honey out of fairy dust? Do they make it out of unicorn hair? Though it is not displayed in our informal logic, 'makes' is actually a triadic predicate; 'Mxyz' = "x makes y from z". In accepting such a simple statement as 'B', you are dealing with things both said and unsaid. And this is the case with all statements, even within the infinite regress that results once the sub-statements, such as P1-3, are called into question.
In a real life example, consider the cliche' lawyer's question to a defendent who's taken the stand: "Did you simply throw your clothes away or burn them after murdering Jones?" You can imagine the implications regardless of how the defendent answers the question. Eitherway, by even answering the question he has conceeded that the statement [T (thrown the clothes away after committing the crime) or B (burned the clothes after committing the crime)] is true. Following this, through disjunction elimination we know he either threw his clothes away or burned his clothes and this was done after he committed the crime. This is why cliche' lawyers get paid so much; they leave no room for the 5th.
But don't worry, this post was just the building blocks. You may have been wondering about arguments, but now may think statements are overwhelmingly complex. Well, there's truth to that. Luckily, once you understand why statements have such depth, you'll be well on your way to winning an argument against me. The next step will be taking a further look into the relationship between statements and arguments, which we refer to as associated conditionals. Till then, try undercutting a few statements for the fallicy...any good fundementalist website will do for practice.
Post Scripts...
posted by J.B.P. at 6:00 PM
4 Comments:
Interesting ... there are other ways to use logic, though, by just thinking something through. Just in case you wanted to better represent your readers who don't like math. ;)
thank you jeffery!
i know many of your readers know at least a little about philosophy, and i know none... but i definitely appreciate the lessons...
cant wait to see you again!
SLC
FALLICY!...there are no good fundamentalist sites. AH HA. I got you by the short hairs Pretti!
Nicely done, Kinney! Good example.
As for the worry in the first comment, thinking things through is exactly how I intend to demonstrate logic. The '=' sign has no mathematical barrings, other than to say "this means the same as this." Keep in mind that logic is very structured and, as such, is similar to math. However, even in thinking things through, you are attempting to find the underlying structure. I will be jumping back and forth to formal logic, but this will merely be to show the underlying structure for what it is. All the understanding and examples will be based in what I refer to as informal logic.
Post a Comment
<< Home