“Logic is the anatomy of thought” – John Locke
Formal logic holds that a good argument is a “sound” argument – i.e. an argument in which the truth of the propositions logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.
By using formal logic, it is possible to infer (via deduction or induction) whether an argument is sound or not by testing whether the conclusion is made true by the supporting propositions.
A classic example of an argument based on formal logic is:
Proposition 1: “All humans are mortal”
Proposition 2: “David Beckham is human”
Conclusion: “David Beckham is mortal”
In every day life most people use “informal logic” in their reasoning and arguments. This is a much less strict version of logic that doesn’t accord to the strict rules of inference that formal logic – e.g. mathematical logic - does.
Informal logic is not so much about “truth” but more to do with “persuasion”. And as the at the core of persuasion is the idea of making it easy for your audience to “understand” you, it is of the utmost importance to ensure arguments are “well structured” and each part of the argument can easily be picked apart.
A classic format of “Informal logic” is based around a 4-tiered structure:
- Your position (I think . . .) – what you think overall
- Propositions (Because . . .) – reasons that support your position
- Arguments (As . . .) – supporting arguments that back up each of your propositions (this is also referred to as a minor “proposition”)
- Evidence (Supported by . . .) – supporting evidence to back up your arguments
So using this structure, an argument may look like this:
- Position: Liverpool are better than Everton
- Proposition: Because Liverpool are more successful on the pitch
- Argument: As Liverpool have won more cups and are higher in the league
- Evidence: Which is supported by the fact that Liverpool have won the Champions League 5 times, Everton have never won it.
Acknowledging this tiered informal logic structuring means it’s easy to formulate an argument – and equally easy for the audience to pick it apart, and judge for themselves whether they believe in the truth of each of the premises of the overall argument – i.e. the propositions, supporting arguments and supporting evidence.
Additional to the informal logic structure, influential arguers should also takes into account two further components of persuasive argument proposed in Aristotelian rhetoric:
- pathos (the convictions of the audience to whom an argument is addressed)
- ethos (the character of the arguer)
(N.B. Aristotle’s third component was logos – the logic of the argument)
Classic uses of pathos in persuasive arguments include the use of “metaphor” or “story telling”. By anchoring your propositions in your audience’s world makes them much easier to engage with.
The core to ensuring an arguer establishes ethos, is to show “moral competence” and high levels of knowledge. This can be done implicitly by the cogency and stature of your argument, or explicitly by ensuring your arguments are well supported by weighty evidence.
So to recap, borrowing off and updating Aristotle’s ancient (and ever prescient) wisdom, there are 3 rules to follow if you’re going to win arguments and influence people:
- Logos – structure your argument well, and make sure it holds true (even if it’s not true make your position at least seem true)
- Pathos – back up your position with propositions which use stories and language that chime with your audience.
- Ethos – make sure your arguments are well founded, and backed up with some juicy (believable) evidence.
logic proves everything and nothing are true – gorgias
1) all cretans are liars
2) Hippopottomes, a cretan, says he is a cretan.
3) Hippopottomes is
a) telling the truth, because he is lying; or
b) lying, because he is telling the truth; or
c) caught in a vicious ancient paradox that cannot
be resolved.
a snail is approaching the finish line of a race.
each time it jumps, it jumps half way to the finish line.
does it every finish the race?
a) no, because half of infinity is infinity.
b) yes, because we can approximate the limit of the infinitesimal in the limit to zero and therefore in the limit, he approaches the finish line, and he actually does, in the limit, finish, approximately.
c) What the heck do I know? I’m a debate, I never studied math.
“locke’s thought is the myopia of logic”
john locke wrote or believed in all of the following;
1) you had to have property to vote;
2) catholics were not as valuable morally as protestants;
3) he actually wrote a state constitution for one of the colonies of the american colonies that did not fully tolerate all religions, contrary to his own views and beliefs;
4) he did not believe in the trinity of god, holy spirit and jesus christ, or if he did, he did not believe they could fully co-exist in one being at the same time in the same place one in three and three in one as required by the Nicene Creed;
5) locke’s arguments for toleration are
a) utilitarian
b) rights – based
c) both
d) neither
6) the american constitution is based more on
a) locke’s political thought
b) aristotle’s political thought
c) the requirements of southern slaveholders and northern war bondholders
logic, philosphy and political science are
1) hermeneutical and linguistic constructs designed to obscure the fact that we are all food for a giant computer machine known as the matrix
2) hermeneutical and linguistic constructs designed to obscure the fact that we are all food for a giant military industrial global corporate complex known as the american empire
3) both 1 and 2
4) neither 1 or 2
5) 1 or 2
6) give me the blue pill, i don’t want to go down the rabbit hole
logos, pathos and ethos translate roughly into modern english as follows;
logos – “moe”
pathos – “larry”
ethos – “curly”
together, these are known as the “fates” or better known as, “the three stooges”.
it is a mystery as to why “shemp” sometimes replaces “curly” in some of the later works.
this appears to be because of the change in ethos of the filmmakers.
[...] up this website has written a brilliant post about the theory behind aMap which is worth reading: How to win arguments and influence people. In a nutshell, the structure of ‘informal logic’ looks like this [...]