Wesleyan philosophy 2 -- What is good thinking?

Deductive Reasoning
There is a style of logic whose official form seems to go back to Aristotle from 384-322 BC. You might call it “syllogistic logic” because it has a format that involves “syllogisms.” With syllogisms, you have premises that build to logical conclusions. If the premises are true and the logic is valid, then the conclusion must also be true.

I have never been able to imagine a scenario where this approach to truth claims would not be valid. I recognize that such logic might possibly take on a different form in a different culture. For most of us, especially in daily life, our reasoning is more intuitive and implicit. We do not usually tell our spouse, “premise 1, premise 2, conclusion.” (Some of us might from time to time, but our spouses may consider us rather weird and annoying.)

While this particular form of logic might be cultural in some sense, I cannot see where it does not reflect underlying absolute truths of this universe. Another culture might express such truths in other forms, but I consider that a difference in form rather than substance.

The moniker, “Western logic” seems a bit peculiar. Ancient Greece was a quite different world than mine. There was no Europe at that time. Ancient Greece was different from Renaissance Italy and Enlightenment Prussia too. “Western” mainly says, “not Eastern, not Africa, not Middle East, not South American," and so forth. I suppose it means a modern European perspective on Aristotelian logic that has carried over from Europe to academic philosophy in the United States.

While I believe more metaphorical and intuitive forms of logic are valid and get at the same truths, I find Aristotelian logic and its heritage to be more precise and thus more helpful at truth-processing than more impressionistic, everyday arguments or more narrative versions. The syllogism is a bit like math, and it is hard to argue that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. Accordingly, if all truth is God’s truth, then syllogistic logic is part of natural revelation and thus absolute truth in its substance. I can’t see any way around it. I find it extremely unhelpful to align it with certain people groups, except perhaps in relation to its form.

I call this sort of reason, “micro-reason.” It is not worldview reasoning or even paradigmatic reasoning. Such larger “macro-reason” is very open to question and examination. "Macro-reason" is the use of micro-reason to argue for truths. It is micro-reason in action. When our contemporaries question Wesley’s quadrilateral, they must surely be questioning macro-reason with larger assumptions and the application of micro-reason. When they do so, they are using micro-reason or fundamental logic.

Micro-reason is used in all thinking, as soon as we connect two atoms of thought together. We cannot interpret the Bible without using our micro-reasoning. [1] We cannot process a word from the Lord through the Holy Spirit without micro-reasoning. From Tertullian to Kierkegaard to Barth, these “I believe it because it is absurd” folk used micro-reason. Even Jacques Derrida, as opaque as his deconstructionist writings are, used micro-reason, although he tried very hard to obfuscate it. Micro-reason is thus foundational, underlying truth of any propositional kind, including truths we might draw from the Bible.

This sort of micro-reason or fundamental logic to the universe ultimately boils down to fundamental presuppositions. At some point, you hit basic definitions and assumptions that cannot be proved. Geometric proofs ultimately are built on the basis of fundamental axioms that cannot be proven. They are simply assumed.

One of the fundamental tests for truth is the coherence test. Does a proposed truth contradict itself? The law of non-contradiction states that a claim cannot both be true and untrue if it is stated literally. So if you find a fundamental contradiction in a collection of truth claims, at least one of your truth claims must be false in some way.

It does not seem to me that any of these understandings of logic contradict faith in general, let alone Wesleyan faith. Logic seems to be fundamental to the way God has made this universe. It is part of absolute truth. It is part of natural revelation. We cannot avoid it, not even when we are trying to listen to Scripture and interpret it.

Inductive Reasoning
Deductive reasoning starts with certain assumptions and then draws conclusions, like an upside-down V. By contrast, inductive reasoning is like a normal V. You draw in evidence and make inferences. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning tends to be open-ended. Unless you have all the possible data, there is always the chance that the next piece of data you collect will throw the coherence test out of whack and sink your hypothesis.

The scientific method is inductive. You collect evidence. You form a hypothesis. You collect more data and test the hypothesis. You refine the hypothesis if necessary. Eventually, you have enough proven results to present a theory, and so forth. This process never strictly ends as long as there is more data to collect. Paradigms form. Paradigms shift. And so on.

A recent display at the Smithsonian declared the scientific method to be white in nature. We face a similar question to that we mentioned in relation to Aristotelian logic. In this case, we point back to Francis Bacon, who was English and lived from 1561-1626.

I consider any such designation extremely unfortunate and undesirable because of how incredibly successful the method has been. It seems to me that it describes the approach that people in all times and all places have used in one form or another for discovery. Where can we find water? Such and such suggests we might dig here. Let’s dig. No water. Let’s try over here. Water. While there may be cultural dimensions to the way the scientific method is expressed and formulated, let us strongly refrain from associating it with any ethnicity or people group. That almost begs for racist inferences of a most heinous nature.

Thus while the results of any particular scientific quest are not absolute truth, the scientific method as a model for seeking truth would seem to be part of the logic of the universe. It is sound reasoning. The results, however, are more often than not eternally tentative.

If the coherence test is a test for truth that relates to deductive reasoning, the “correspondence test” is a test that relates to inductive reasoning. Does the claim that I am making correlate with the data I have? A third test for truth is the pragmatic test. If I operate on the assumption that this hypothesis is true, does it “work” in the world? Does it get me from a to b? You may have heard the expression, “for heuristic purposes.” The idea is that I assume something to see if the hypothesis “works” without assuming it is actually true.

Logical Fallacies
Many different logical fallacies lurk and abound in our reasoning. Some are formal and relate more to deductive reasoning. Others are informal and relate more to inductive reasoning. They are fallacies because they violate the fundamental laws of logic above. Note that one’s conclusion might be true and yet poorly argued.

Below are some logical fallacies. We should point out that they are fallacies because they do not necessitate a certain conclusion. Practically speaking, sometimes this sort of reasoning turns out to point to something that proves to be true in the “real world.” By calling them logical fallacies, we mean that you cannot be certain the conclusion is true. The conclusion does not follow for certain.

• Hasty generalization – you form a conclusion without enough evidence yet
• Ad hominem fallacy – you attack the person rather than the argument they are making
• Circumstantial fallacy – you assume a conclusion without direct observation but from surrounding, “circumstantial” evidence.
• “After this, because of this” – A form of the circumstantial fallacy. Just because something followed something else chronologically doesn’t prove the first thing caused the second.
• Genetic fallacy – The origins of a conclusion or the reasons why someone believes a conclusion neither prove nor disprove the conclusion.
• Fallacy of diversion – basically, changing the subject
• Fallacy of equivocation -- slipping a different meaning to your terms in mid-argument
• False alternative – You give an "a or b" choice when there are actually other options as well.
• Slippery slope fallacy – Once you start moving in a particular direction, it is not guaranteed that you will continue moving further in that direction.
• Circular reasoning/begging the question – assuming your conclusion in your argument
• Fallacies of composition and division – You assume everything in a group is a certain way because something in that group is that way. Also the opposite: because of a general trend of a group you assume everything in that group manifests that trend.
• Appeal to ignorance – Absence of evidence does not disprove a claim
• Appeal to the majority – something isn’t true just because most people believe it
• Appeal to improper authority – citing someone who is not an authority on an issue does not support your case
• Appeal to emotion – something isn’t true because it “feels so right”
• Appeal to force – you can’t make something true by forcing people to affirm it

These basic fallacies would seem to be sound warnings. They do not indicate for certain that your conclusion is false, but they do indicate that your logic for reaching those conclusions is invalid. They are the stuff of political and religious rhetoric. We would be wise to know them well so that we can spot when our minds are potentially being manipulated.

There is nothing unWesleyan about the idea of these fallacies. This would seem to be a good thing because they would seem to be part of the absolute truth of the universe as God has created it. Their form may have cultural elements, but the underlying truth to which they point would seem to be unassailable. They are part of natural revelation.

[1] Unavoidably, micro-reason is thus logically prior to Scripture because we cannot interpret Scripture or any revelation without using it. When we speak of the priority of Scripture to reason in the quadrilateral, we are speaking of it in relation to what I am calling "macro-reason."

Gen Eds Series P4: Critical Thinking

This is my fourth philosophy post in a series called, "General Education in a Nutshell." Philosophy is the first of ten subjects I plan to overview in this series. These are the subjects a person normally takes in college (or high school) to be a generally educated person (most of them also make up what is sometimes called the "liberal arts").

The first three philosophy posts were:

• Philosophy Overview
• Philosophy of Religion
• Epistemology

1. Critical thinking is perhaps the most important skill a person can get from the liberal arts and a general education. Critical thinking skills are the ability to analyze claims, identify their assumptions, and make judgments about their likely truthfulness.

There are three basic components to human thinking. First there are assumptions or presuppositions, which include our "paradigms" or patterns we follow when interpreting things. [1] These are inescapable and fundamental to all our reasoning. Then there is our thought process itself, which is governed by logic or reasoning. Finally, there is the content of our thinking, the inputs we take from the world on the basis of our experiences and senses.

Somewhat related to these are three classical tests for truth. The correspondence test basically asks, "Does this claim correspond to reality?" It is thus related to the inputs part of thinking. The impossibility of objectivity puts a big damper on this test because all of our understanding of the world and its data is processed by our minds, interpreted.

So the correspondence test is best limited to fairly basic claims like, "There is an elephant in this room." Really? Do you mean a literal elephant or are you using a figure of speech? If you meant the statement literally, I should be able to quickly confirm or deny your claim using the correspondence test.

2. The second test is the coherence test. It asks whether the logic of my claim or argument is coherent. Are there any logical fallacies in your line of thought. Of course an argument can be completely coherent and yet false because your assumptions or premises are false. Here we have what is called the syllogism, first explored in detail by the Greek thinker Aristotle.

• All philosophy teachers are geniuses.
• Ken is a philosophy teacher.
• Ken is a genius.

The logic here is valid--it works and is coherent. But the first premise is not true because not all philosophy teachers are geniuses. And I did not teach philosophy last year or the coming year. I'm actually a New Testament scholar. So the logic of this syllogism works, but the premises are false. You should not conclude thereby that Ken is a genius.

3. The third test has especially risen to prominence in this postmodern time, namely, the pragmatic test. It asks whether a truth claim works. What do you mean by "works"? Does it achieve its goal? There is a sense in which we might think of all of our paradigms and theories about the world as heuristic devices, "myths" or highly developed poems of a sort to help us process the world.

Are there electrons, protons, and neutrons? This theory has done us very, very well over the last century. We can't really see them. We can really only see the effects of these proposed particles. So the question of whether it is true that they exist is really one of the pragmatic test. The theory works and has been developed to work very well to predict what will happen under certain circumstances.

4. The next post will look at the philosophy of science and so will continue our discussion of assumptions and a pragmatic approach to reality. For the rest of this post, we want to mention the most significant logical fallacies or errors in thinking, which are always very relevant in an election season.

a. Jumping to Conclusions (hasty generalization)
We do it all the time. We don't have all the information and yet we form a conclusion. Candidates, election ads, and cable news figures often give us just enough data for us to jump to a conclusion. The critical thinker will question every one.

b. The Straw Man argument
Often in an argument, someone creates a slightly (or greatly) skewed version of an opponent's position. So Obama has never tried (or thought it possible in a million years) to get rid of the second amendment. No one is trying to set up death panels. These are skewed versions of real political positions that a critical thinker will see right through.

c. Attacking the Person (ad hominem fallacy)
It is a standard technique in politics to attack the person rather than the positions. Trump does this all the time. Mitt Romney is a loser. John McCain is a loser. Hilary Clinton was an enabler. Unless these claims relate in some substantial way to the claims these people are making, then they are irrelevant. The critical thinker will ignore name calling when considering an argument.

d. Loaded Question
One of the things I mourn about the news situation today is the loaded question. That's when you assume a position in your questioning. "Don't you think it is hypocritical of you to say that you support economic growth when your decisions work entirely against it?" An objective question will try to assume as little as possible in the asking. "In what ways would you say that your decisions in office have helped or hindered economic growth?" The critical thinker will be disgusted by the way many news interviews are conducted these days.

e. Begging the Question (circular reasoning)
Similar to a loaded question, this is when you assume your conclusion in your argument. "The Bible is inspired because 1 Timothy 3:16 says so." You are assuming the Bible is inspired to argue that the Bible is inspired, which is bad reasoning.

f. Black and White Thinking (false alternative)
This is where a person says, "Either you believe this or you believe that," when in fact there are more alternatives. Either you believe in unregulated capitalism or you are a communist. There are a lot of options in between these two. But because most people have trouble with nuance, politicians are constantly manipulating bad thinkers with this one. The critical thinker will see right through it. There are usually other options, "third ways," middle paths, etc.

g. Wishful Thinking (appeal to emotion)
Most people think mostly with their emotions, not their reason. We find arguments to support what we want to be true. "It can't be wrong because it feels so right." Tell that to the ground next time you fall off a building. Intuitions can actually be based on unarticulated evidence. But your feelings are completely irrelevant to the truth. But I don't want to have a broken arm because I got in a car accident. Tough cookies. The truth doesn't care how you feel.

h. Changing the Issue (fallacy of diversion)
There are all sorts of versions of this one. Today we want to argue that women should be paid the same as men if they do the same job. "Oh yeah, well do you know how many babies were aborted today? Now that's a more important issue. "The critical thinker will not be thrown off by this changing of the issue.

The slippery slope argument is another diversion. "If we have any gun control at all, pretty soon they will be taking away all our guns." Completely illogical and the critical thinker will not be fooled.

The genetic fallacy changes the issue to where it came from. "You realize the person who came up with this idea was a criminal." Really? That's interesting. But is the idea right or wrong, because where the idea came from is a diversion.

The you also (tu quoque) argument tries to turn the focus off of me and on to you: "Well, you're a fine one to say that." The critical thinker will notice that the speaker is trying to deflect attention off of him or herself.

i. Prejudice and Smearing (composition and division)
Another tool in the illogical politician's toolbox is to smear an opponent by connecting them with a bad group (division) or maligning a whole group because a bad individual is part of it. "He must be a terrorist because he's Muslim." Or "I knew a Christian who was a hypocrite; therefore, all Christians are hypocrites."

And many more...

The world is sorely lacking critical thinkers. Every election cycle in America we realize just how illogically most people think. Perhaps the most important function of an education, especially in a democracy, is to try to inculcate critical thinking skills. It is largely a losing battle. But progress can be made.

Next Week: Philosophy 5: Philosophy of Science

[1] On a larger scale, our presuppositions include the frameworks or paradigms through which we process the world, which some like to call "worldviews" or our "narratives," but there are fallacies lurking in a perspective that thinks we make most our decisions on the basis of large ideological frameworks. See the next post on the philosophy of science.

Spot the Fallacy Night

For the Presidential debates (for both parties), our esteemed philosophy professor Steve Horst has his Logic class doing a "spot the fallacy" assignment. If I have enough time, I may tweet the fallacies myself.

Want to join? Let's use #logicalfallacies .

Hasty Generalization

The fallacy of hasty generalization--jumping to conclusions when you don't have all the information--something I fight because I don't want to look stupid and because Christ commands me to love my enemy.

I think I'm at least getting better. How about you?