The Lazy Man’s Guide to Good Deductive Arguments

About three years ago, a commenter told me that “By themselves, Logic and reason prove nothing. We have plenty of cases of logic correctly applied which lead to stunningly wrong conclusions.” The same person wrote me a lengthy essay attempting to use logic in order to show that “logic and reason prove nothing”!

6
1435

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Whenever I want to be entertained, I sometimes sit back and observe some of the internal contradictions that exist in the political and intellectual landscape. Sometimes it would get so bad that I would end up asking myself,

“Why did those people even bother to take a simple course in geometry or logic in high school or college if they cannot (or will not) apply it to real-life? Why do people want to get an education after all? How can those people not see the fundamental implications of their own worldview? Is it really that hard to sit down and start examining the logical endpoint of one’s own position? Do these people really care about truth and logic and consistency at all? Or do they just want to insult logic and reason?”

People who take logic and reason seriously always try to follow an argument to its logical conclusion and see where it really leads.

However, logic is a frightening thing, particularly when you subscribe to an ideology which doesn’t allow you to follow your own system to its ultimate conclusions. The reason you and I can come to an agreement about certain issues is because of logic, which has numerous branches. Deductive arguments are part of logic.

Now, what qualifies as a good deductive argument? Simple. For a valid deductive argument to be a good one, the premises of the argument has to be more probable or plausible than its denials. As a corollary, if the premises of a deductive argument is true and the conclusion is based on the premises and on the rule of logic, then we have a good deductive argument. A classic example is simply this:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore, Socrates is mortal

We have good reasons to believe that both premises are true, therefore the conclusion is also true. It’s just that simple. I didn’t invent these rules of logic. They have been in existence longer than I’ve been alive, and human beings cannot function without them.

I have written in a previous article that if a system denies metaphysical morality, then proponents of that system cannot use morality to attack another system. This is logically irrational and indefensible and it has nothing to do with Jonas E. Alexis.

I have also argued that both David Duke and Kevin MacDonald are staunch Darwinists. Surprisingly, both individuals use morality to attack Zionism. I have argued that this is logically incoherent precisely because Darwin himself denies morality. Instead of responding to the arguments that I put forth, here are some responses by a number of commenters:

“Jonas’ hat size is going up by the week. Like, he’s the ultimate arbiter of all things philosophical and otherwise.”

What does that have to do with anything I have said? Well, absolutely and positively nothing. In fact, this is a classic example of ad hominem attack in logic.

Another individual misquoted me saying, “‘To answer Darwinism’s fundamental questions because they have very little respect for logical consistency.’? What heap of garbage is this?”

I have written more than eight articles on this very issue! And the one I wrote recently laid out very clearly where the issues lie. I said again and again that if a person cannot deal with blatant contradictions within his own system, then that person has very little respect for logical consistency.

Isn’t it true that both Duke and MacDonald are ardent Darwinists? Isn’t it true that Darwin denies morality? Isn’t it true that both MacDonald and Duke are using morality to condemn Zionism and Neoconservatism? If the answers to those questions are yes, yes, and yes, then we have a problem. It’s just that simple.

Now, if a person cannot see that there is indeed a problem—or if he is unwilling to see the obvious—then fine. But don’t call yourself a reasonable person, and you have no part in any logical discussion whatsoever. You are more than welcome to call people names and talk about all kinds of irrelevant topics, but you are not welcome to say that you are abiding by any logical principle. And if you want people to take you seriously, deal with the arguments and not the hat size of the person. This is really sophomoric.

It gets so weird that some people seem to have little respect arguments at all. I have recently written an article entitled, “Trump is reasserting his role as the ultimate Zionist pawn.” I raised a number of issues in that article and I have backed them up with a number of uncontroversial facts. But instead of dealing with the main topics and responding to them in a rational way, one commenter declared:

“The overly ‘educated’ author, Jonas Alexis, always has gets [sic] his panties in a bunch when joos [sic] and Americans defend themselves. I wonder why poor Jonas never questions the aggressiveness of communist and theocratic North Korea and Iran, respectively, where their populations starve while they threaten other countries and starve their own people?

“The question remains, why doesn’t ‘Professor’ Jonas sell his ski cap and buy a one-way ticket to Iran? In fact, why doesn’t the whole VT staff leave the Zio-dominated US and go to Iran to pray to their God and supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? Hmmmm.”

This is worse than stupidity. My only message to people like this is simply this: Don’t ever walk into a logic class with that kind of attitude. You will be viewed as a lunatic. But nonsense seems to have a grip on many people in this world.

About three years ago, a commenter told me that “By themselves, Logic and reason prove nothing. We have plenty of cases of logic correctly applied which lead to stunningly wrong conclusions.” The same person wrote me a lengthy essay attempting to use logic in order to show that “logic and reason prove nothing”! I responded by saying,

“In order to say that ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ one obviously has to use logic and reason–an impressively and fantastically incoherent argument. In fact, if ‘logic and reason prove nothing,’ why should we listen to Mr. [X] here? Is he telling us to ignore his point? If this is so, then he shall have his wish.”

An honest plea to some commenters: Please, deal with the topic and respond to the arguments in a logical way. That’s how you are going to be taken seriously. But if you don’t care whatsoever, then you may have to find some place else to roost.

Biography
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.

DISCLOSURES: All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

6 COMMENTS

  1. Jonas – I suggest that you remove ambiguity by posting an essay defining exactly what you mean by “Darwinism”, as its definition varies between groups, geographically, and/or over time. Severability applies here, e.g. Darwin’s philosophical conclusions being wrong does not by necessity invalidate his scientific conclusions.

    On a social note – if you (general you, not just Jonas) want to annoy people and become an outcast, apply reductio ad absurdum to their statements and point out logical contradictions.

    Regarding hat size, knitted toques are stretchy, so no need to worry. 🙂

    • Worker Bee,

      This article is based on a previous article, where I specifically addressed where Darwin got it wrong. Second, a system cannot be wrong philosophically and be right scientifically at the same time. That’s incoherent. I have addressed these issues elsewhere. Please take a look at the first two articles I wrote on Kevin MacDonald. Third, Darwinism is mathematically impossible. I was hoping to address these issues in more details in the previous article, but that would be two long and technical. Darwinism’s mathematical problems have been addressed by a wide range of scientific minds, including Sir Fred Hoyle.

    • Lastly, pointing out a serious logical contradiction is like trying to “to annoy people and become an outcast”? The statement undermines its own mine because it implicitly is trying to point out “contradictions” in my own statement. Now, if you are true here, then why are you an anti-Zionist? Aren’t you trying to point out contradictions in the Zionist project as well and therefore become an outcast in the Zionist world? The statement simply doesn’t add up. I will take logic and reason any day over an ideology.

    • Jonas – Taking Darwin’s work as a whole, there is no logical reason why parts of it (e.g. natural selection) cannot be correct, while other parts (e.g. the social implications as regards human societies) cannot be wrong. Because it is defined so many different ways, the term Darwinism by itself is too ambiguous to be useful.

      You misunderstand my second point – it was merely commentary on the social effects of being logically correct. People do not like being pointed out that they are wrong, and generally respond very negatively to it (e.g. when one points out the crimes of Israel, the response often is “you are a racist antisemite”, not a counter-argument based on facts and logic). I believe we are actually in agreement here.

    • Thanks for your answer. First of all, Darwin didn’t invent natural selection. It was around long before there ever was a person named Charles Darwin or even Herbert Spencer or Alfred Russell Wallace. Second, natural selection has very little to do with Darwin’s metaphysical principle, too much to detail here. In fact, Darwin never addressed the origin of species in his ambitious work The Origin of Species. Explaining how species work has nothing to do with its origin. I can explain how a computer work, but does that mean that I know how it got here in the first place? Again, I addressed where Darwin got it wrong in my previous articles. If you can challenge anything I said there, then we’ll have a good dialogue. Thanks again for your good remarks.

Comments are closed.