Devoid of Reason
In his new book, Crimes Against Logic (McGraw-Hill), Jamie Whyte attacks the fallacious arguments put forth by politicians, pundits and self-help gurus, among others. Erik Strand spoke to Whyte, formerly a lecturer of philosophy at Cambridge University in the U.K., about why humans struggle with rational analysis.
Why do we violate the laws of logic?
Many people are not well trained in it, and they don't get many good examples in everyday life. Some know their arguments are shoddy, but they use them anyway.
Why isn't logic intuitive?
People tend to do poorly without direct feedback from reality. Very rarely do you hear people talk utter nonsense about driving their car; but they will talk utter nonsense about, say, Third World debt or about what's going to happen to them after they die. There is no perceptual input. You can't tell if you're wrong.
Can one be too logical?
If you see a person follow a path of reasoning to a conclusion that is obviously absurd, one of two things must have gone wrong: Either their reasoning was faulty somewhere or one of their premises was false. Perfect logic can never take you from a true premise to a false conclusion.
Is it OK to deceive yourself if you wind up better off in the long run?
Everyone thinks that his mother loves him. It's no good going around thinking that your mom doesn't love you. Believing some false things can be good for you. I'm not advocating that one be like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. There are habits of mind that you need to help you get along with other people.
Do you commit logical fallacies?
Yes. When a politician recommends some course of action, and I can see that he's recommending it for an electoral purpose, I say, "Oh that bastard, he's just sucking up to the trade unions." But that doesn't mean it's not the right policy.
Tags:
cambridge university,
everyday life,
gurus,
habits of mind,
lecturer,
logic,
logical fallacies,
mcgraw hill,
mr spock,
pundits,
rational analysis,
reasoning,
utter nonsense
