Reason's Got Nothing To Do With It

You're sitting around one boring Saturday afternoon, scrolling through some sort of social media. You find a picture you think is funny/profound/interesting and you share it before continuing to scroll. The next morning you wake up to a veritable shit storm of angry comments talking about how and why you are wrong.

Baffled, you make some sort of gesture to defend yourself, but these "trolls" are waiting to pounce with a garbage dump of words that leaves you tired just reading them. You see an endless stream of 'ad hominems' and 'strawman' accusations and so on. You know these are examples of logical fallacies, but you struggle to see what is so controversial about a cute cat not liking pineapple pizza.

I'm sure all of you have experienced the logic- dictator online (If not, you may be the logic dictator). I found that, in most of these cases, the logic-dictator has absolutely no real idea what they are talking about. More often than not, they are even guilty of the very logical fallacies they are accusing others of. Ah, the bliss that is ignorance.

For me, I get accused of argumentum ad misericordiam (none of them actually use this term, but it is what it's called.) an awful lot, or the appeal to pity. All of them would be wrong, however. The trouble lies in the fact that I am discussing personal, emotional issues that they are trying to turn an emotional issue into a logical one. Then, they accuse me of being too emotional, and trying for the pity approach. Issues close to my heart, such as homelessness, child abuse, sexism, racism, environment, and so on are socioeconomic issues that have little to do with simple logic. They are issues that SHOULD make us emotional. If you feel nothing for these issues, and believe you can explain them simply using no emotion, then you either do not understand them enough to discuss them or you are a sociopath.

Logic just does not belong in many issues, especially by amateurs.

I remember one such discussion with a cousin of mine. I was explaining my own personal experiences with sexism, and my work in helping women who have been personally affected by a vicious patriarchy. He must have accused me of every single logical fallacy there is. He kept asking me for my sources, and I kept telling him that I AM the source. I was speaking from experience, as both an abused woman and a caregiver to other abused women.

I tried to share articles with him, but they just made him doubt me more. I needed a source from a scientific magazine instead of from 'Feminist' sources.

So I provided scientific studies. He discounted all of them for not being scientific enough. In the end, I spent more time explaining what I WASN'T saying, and defending my right to even speak, than actually making any points.

My final argument was to ask him to look over our conversation, and to please see how much time I had to defend my right to an educated opinion; that our very conversation was proof of the point I was trying to make. He refused to see it, so I gave up.

The fact that I had a different life experience from his was viewed as an attack on him, and apparently his sons. I was left baffled. He thought he had won with his (self professed) unbeatable logic, but I had just given up trying to explain something to someone who lacked basic knowledge on both the subject AND logic.

The problem with most of these logic-dictators is that they fail to truly understand logic and how it can be properly used by emotional beings, which is what we humans are. They struggle to find a simple explanation for a complex issue, which just cannot be done.

One common misconception in the world of logic is that "if you cannot explain it simply, you do not understand it". I'm sure we have all seen this quote attributed to Albert Einstein, but neither he nor anyone else ever said this. The closest quote came from Richard Feynman, and he actually meant the opposite: that it is not possible to explain complex subjects simply. There are many quotes like Feyman's, but they all mean the opposite of what we believe. I call this diet wisdom, and America is chalk full of it.

We all wish we could explain things simply, but it is just not possible. The more you understand something, the more time you need to explain it properly.

Honestly, if you think you are an expert, you most likely are not; especially if you think you have nothing left to learn.

There is ALWAYS something more to learn.

Another problem I have with logic is the idea is conditional statements. If A, then B; A, therefore B. 'If you go outside while it's raining, then you will get wet.". Seems pretty logical, but it is also conditional. What if you have an umbrella? What if you stand under an awning? So, while many people would think it is logical, it is not. If you were to say this to your mom, however, you may get a smack or a glare for being a smartass, because such an argument is just semantics in our daily conversive life. Also, the next part of the statement would be "you are wet, therefore you went outside" or the inverse "you are not wet, therefore you did not go outside" cannot be proven, therefore there is just not enough information to make this a logical truth.

However, if you were to same something along the lines of "if pink aliens rise from the mercury pond, then there will be monkeys in your bed tonight", that would be considered a logical truth. Why? Well, because in a world where pink aliens rise from pools of mercury, then it is also possible monkeys will be in your bed. It is not as strong of an argument as if A then B; A, therefore B, but it is still considered a logical truth, despite the fact that it is a silly nonsense statement.

Another example would if it is brillig, then the slithy toves will gire and gimble in the wabe. It is brillig, therefore the slithy toves did gire and gimble in the wabe" is considered logical.

So, what's my point? Well, this annoying and confusing bit of illogical logic is being used by most people to defend their biased views in the "real world". Things such as "if doctors are allowed to happily kill babies, then we need to protest them with horrible signs" or "if people keep murdering animals for fun, then we need to cover their coats with paint" are being used to justify acts of vandalism and abuses.

Most logic teachers would argue that you necessarily cannot argue with a hypothesis. Not all, but most. This made logic class very difficult for me, to say the least. If you can 100% prove the hypothesis wrong, then that, I believe, is a different story. However...one cannot simply prove a negative claim. We cannot prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that ghosts DO NOT exist. We cannot prove that pink aliens will rise from pools of mercury. We cannot disprove the existence of slithy toves, nor speak to their desire to gire and gimble in the wabe while it is brillig.

In similar, real world examples, you cannot tell a willfully ignorant person they are wrong. No amount of evidence will convince them. They are right, we are wrong. End of discussion, if you ask them.

Maybe my examples here are wrong, or you have found some sort-of fault in them. It's possible. I am not a professor of or expert in logic.

This brings me to yet another point, however: truth is relative. The people from my previous examples have built their conclusions and corresponding actions on false beliefs. How do I know they are false? Well, I talk to the people who hold the initial beliefs and I take their word for it. Shocking, I know! If the majority of abortion doctors (and their patients for that matter) tell me that they believe this is a necessary evil, or that they hate doing it but understand why it's important, then I believe them. It's not up to me to decide how others think and feel, especially if my goal is to blame them for my mistaken understanding of what they think and feel.

Sure, I think abortion is horrible and depressing...but if you have ever taken the time to talk to someone who has had one (and allow yourself to see the anguish, pain, and loss in their eyes) you will understand that what you think and feel doesn't matter. It just doesn't. These people had to make an impossible choice that they will be sad about for the rest of their lives. Who the hell are we to judge?

Even if you do take the time to talk to someone with opposing views, they do not owe you their story or any show of grief. They owe you literally nothing. They have made the best choice for them, and how you feel and what you believe is not important.

My last point here is the simple phrase "it's not about you". Oh, man, do people hate hearing that. They will pull out their logical fallacy charts, their intro to logic books, and they will argue you till you die trying to prove that they have the right to their opinions on everything. I'm sorry (not sorry, actually), but unless you are, let's say gay, you have zero right to a personal opinion about them. Conditional statements do not apply to you. You don't get to "logic" yourself into having a say. You get nothing. Your opinion doesn't matter. You LOSE. Good DAY sir!

I have no right to an opinion over stupid jerk white men who use their power and authority to hurt everyone not like them. I mean, I clearly have them...we all do. But I have zero RIGHT to a say over what those who are not like me do and say and think. I can study them, listen to them, form an educated opinion about them...bit no amount of study will EVER give me the right to discount what they say about themselves. Man, do I want to, though! I want to tell rich white powerful men that they are full of shit, and are wrong about everything. To overgeneralize: most of them suck ass. I can only understand them by listening to them, and their stories. I can use logic and facts to understand that what they say and believe is both stupid and batshit crazy, but I cannot, not will not, TELL then what they think, experience, and believe. Everything is relative, even the truth.

I CAN tell them they are wrong about things that affect ME, of course. If they say women are lying about my experiences with rape, for starters, then that's about me, not them. I'm free to tell them they are dumb jerks who don't have a link of sense. They don't get to put their shit on me, after all, ad hominem or no. Because logic was not present when I was raped, and my feelings regarding it are also free from logic.

Basically, you can be smart, wise, educated, AND EMOTIONAL. The lack of emotion is not the definition of logic. Not everything can be reduced to a simple mathematical equation. Life, society, and language are messy beasts that will not be restrained under the yoke of logic. If we are to communicate properly, then we must use logic sparingly.

Guilty- these people do not seem to understand that their logic tantrums are actually emotional in nature. They act in such a way that they portray that, anyway. There is just so little understanding of the terms they use. They claim ad hominem if they are offended, not if an offense was clearly meant. They claim strawman when you try to use an example to help them understand your point in another way. They claim red herring when they don't understand how two things can be connected. The list goes on, but in all of these cases the person is trying to discount you regarding something they don't understand using complicated logic that they also clearly don't understand. They have already decided you are wrong, and can twist everything you say to make it seem as though they are correct and logical.

Logic can and is used by most people to justify the terrible things they do. Look at our country's history- we first used "logic" to justify to horrible murders and abuses of not only the then actual residents of North America, but of the enslavement of an entire continent. We called this manifest destiny.

It was a concept that was completely false from the beginning, but the logic was sound using the if/then rules of the times. It didn't matter that it was all a filthy, horrible lie. Then, hundreds of years later, we literally make teaching the truth of the disgusting things we did illegal, for the logical fact that it "can't be changed" and it will "upset people".

It doesn't matter that we all SHOULD be VERY, VERY UPSET. That all of our wealth, success, and power is based on the cold blooded murder of millions of people. We adopted the term American Dream to cover up the hot pile of garbage, and most of us today truly believe that if someone works hard enough, then they will be successful. We believe that if someone is successful, it means they worked hard.

Logic is just too simple to explain the complexities of socioeconomic theory, yet it is done every damn day.

To be logical is considered the epitome of intellectual wisdom. To be free of emotion, and to think clearly about every subject without caring about the subject...only THEN do we really understand the subject, right?

Well, that is just so very damn wrong. How can you ignore a huge part of your brain, of your human experience, and call yourself an expert? Knowledge and truth are too fluid for that. If you are, at any point in your life, positive that you are an expert that has nothing else to learn...you can be SURE that you are wrong. You should never stop learning, or growing. There is always another way to look at every subject.

Look at Heidegger's comments on 'treeness'. What makes a tree a tree? How might others see a tree? I would describe a tree differently from a lumberjack, for instance. A person with a garden might see a tree as beautiful shade, while another may see the same tree as a messy nuisance they have to clean up after. None of these people are wrong, since it is their own perception...but their perceptions do not change the tree and its essential, universally recognizable qualities of treeness.

I am doubtful that the "Destroyed with FACTS and LOGIC" people have no understanding of Heidegger's theories... but since I don't know them I can hardly comment with any certainty.

We need to understand that truth and experiences are relative, and to know when our truth and experiences matter and when it doesn't. There is no logical statement that will make this easy, because it is emotional in nature. Is there a whole community of people who say that the social system if abusive toward them? Then it is. Even if it is just in their mind. If you want to talk to them, you have to deal with their reality.

Look at some certain communities of white people. They claim they are in the minority, and that their lives and values are under attack. Most of you will roll your eyes at this, and I am doing it right with you! As a privileged white person, I am even able to comment. However, there is such a disconnect between myself and them that they still see me as 'other', so I must approach them as such. Denying someone's truth, no matter how insane it is, should never be something you do. Try to change it? Yes. Tell them what they think is wrong? No. This is a point where conditional statements can actually get you started: IF giving POC rights will diminish the rights of white people, THEN they have a right to be terrified. Yeah, pretty sure I misused logic there, but I hope you get my point. Think of it from their point of view. If what they think is true, wouldn't you also be scared? Then, try to get them to see that their basis of information is actually not true in the gentlest way possible. They may not believe you, but you have already established a common ground. They may see the light someday.

Logic is a TOOL to be used, not the epitome of intellectual thought.

That's the beauty of society, though. We are all good at different things. There are many types of logic and ways of thinking. Society requires all kinds for it to function, not just the logic of the select few who represent a small fraction of the populace. I'm looking at you, politics...

We can't all expect to be reduced into smaller chunks to make ourselves digestible to the populace. While we all need to make allowances in order to be a part of society, we should not have to limit ourselves because of preconceived notions. The social contract may be a hungry beast, but it still requires all of us to be ourselves. Logic and reason has a place, but it is not the king of social discourse. Emotion is. Remember that next time you have a conversation of any kind.

The trolls out there sure don't hold back at all, so why should you?