Rules occur everywhere in life. Some might argue that they exist to control us, and in some circumstances, they might be right, but another function of rules is to allow interaction between people to be possible. If you don’t believe me, then I challenge you to read the first sentence of the autobiography of Lord Timothy Dexter entitled “A Pickle for the Knowing Ones”. Those of you still reading, need not wait for the unfortunates that are currently trying to read “The Pickle”, they will be a while. You see, the rules that Lord Dexter ignored are what we commonly call “grammar”, “spelling”, and “punctuation”. The first period in The Pickle is in one of the addendums of the second edition where Lord Dexter lists an array of punctuation marks that are, as he puts it, “A Nuf here and thay may peper and solt it as thay plese”. I couldn’t make this up. My point is, rules are conventions and guidelines, both explicit and implicit, that allow humans to interact. If we are to have a good dialectic, first we must settle some misunderstandings, or in other words lay down some rules.
There exists in the English language several words and concepts specifically regarding logic that almost everyone is 100% sure they know how to use, when only 5-10% do. These are, in no particular order: Argument, Logic, Given, Valid, Sound, and Fallacy. Definitions and meanings are essential to understanding one another so I plan to begin by defining each of these terms by telling you the commonly assumed definition, and then correcting those misconceptions.
Argument: Most people when they think of arguments, imagine violent and aggressive shouting matches. Those events certainly contain arguments but are not actually arguments in and of themselves. An argument is a series of statements, also called premises, that lead to a conclusion. Let’s take the example of a couple “arguing” over late fees on their cable bill. The wife begins, “You watch TV all damn day, you should know when it is due!” The husband counters, “You handle the bills! I take care of the mortgage!” The wife continues, “I don’t even watch TV, so I’m not going to pay it!” Remember this disagreement as I will refer to it several more times. The conflicting conclusions of each of their arguments makes what we call a “disagreement” and addressing that is called a “debate.” Here’s the diagram of their aggressive debate. I will mark premises with (p) and the conclusion with (c).
Wife: (p): The husband uses the cable all day.
(p): The wife does not use the cable.
(c): The husband should pay for the cable.
Husband: (p): The husband pays the mortgage
(c): The wife should pay the bills.
Logic: The common understanding of logic is whether something “makes sense.” Logic is the internal consistency and rules, both expressed and implied, found within each argument. In this diagram I will use (i) for implied premises. If we look at the arguing couple, their arguments both “make sense”, but not as written, because they are lacking implied logic rules. This is more accurate diagramming:
Wife: (p): The husband uses the cable all day.
(p): The wife does not use the cable.
(i): Using the cable imparts a responsibility to pay for it.
(c): The husband should pay for the cable.
Husband: (p): The husband pays the mortgage
(i): The couple should share their financial burdens.
(c): The wife should pay the cable.
Given: Most people assume a given is the same as an assumption. That is not technically accurate. A given is mutually agreed upon premise. That means a true “given” is not up for debate. There are two givens in our couple’s disagreement. First, that “the bill needs to be paid.” Second, that “the person responsible for paying the bill should also know when it is due.” Note that neither couple has disputed either. After this in our diagrams I will mark givens as (g).
Wife: (g): The cable bill needs to be paid.
(g): The person responsible for paying is also responsible for knowing the due date.
(p): The husband uses the cable all day.
(p): The wife does not use the cable.
(i): Using the cable imparts a responsibility to pay for it.
(c): The husband should pay for the cable.
Husband: (g): The cable bill needs to be paid.
(g): The person responsible for paying is also responsible for knowing the due date.
(p): The husband pays the mortgage
(i): The couple should share their financial burdens.
(c): The wife should pay the cable.
Validity: Most people assume valid means true or acceptable. This is the big important one to understand. If you take nothing else from this, understand that valid does not mean true, nor does it mean acceptable. In logic, valid has an extremely precise and important definition. Valid means: “The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.” Let me put this another way, if you accept all the premises, explicit and implied, of a valid argument, then you also inherently accept the conclusion. An argument can be valid and false, and it can be true but invalid.
Example: (p): All trees are green.
(p): Redwoods are trees.
(c): Redwoods are green.
This argument’s logic is valid, but it is still false because not all its premises are true. Here is an argument with the opposite problem.
Example: (p): Some cars are red.
(p): Some cars can be fast.
(c): Red cars can be fast.
If the logic in this argument seems weak, it’s because it is invalid. The conclusion is true, but its logic is invalid.
Soundness: In standard English, sound means healthy or whole, but in logic it has a different very specific definition. Sounds is another very specific word. It means an argument that is both valid and true. Sound arguments should always be the goal in a dialectic. Soundness should really be sought in any debate. Perhaps our husband and wife wouldn’t fight as often if they kept to that principle. About now, you’re probably wondering what about their argument isn’t sound. After all, they are both valid arguments, aren’t they? Let’s look further into this with our final word.
Fallacy: This is the last word numerous people use incorrectly. Most people think a fallacy is just a false statement. A fallacy is a logical trap. We all generally know a fallacy when we hear one, because we react by rejecting the premise. Many different fallacies exist. Some common ones are an ad populum appeal (everyone is doing it!), an ad hominem appeal (that’s wrong because you are stupid!) an ad baculum appeal (do this or else!), an argumentum ad consequentiam appeal (but if you don’t help, they will die!), argumentum ad personam (you owe me (also called guilt trip)) false dichotomy (you’re either for us or against us), overgeneralization (all trees are green), under exaggeration (I never do that!) and red herring/non sequitur (We should all vote for Harry, because he likes fish!) Fallacies inherently weaken arguments. I once heard a dialectic described as a river with two people on opposite shores laying stones hoping to convince the other to cross on their path. A fallacy is a snake on a stone. Not only will someone refuse to cross, but they are likely to distrust future stones as well. Fallacies are a big reason why our couple never came to an agreement. I’ll mark the fallacies with (f)
Wife: (g): The cable bill needs to be paid.
(g): The person responsible for paying is also responsible for knowing the due date.
(f)(p): The husband uses the cable all day. (overgeneralization)
(f)(p): The wife never uses the cable. (under exaggeration)
(i): Using the cable imparts a responsibility to pay for it.
(c): The husband should pay for the cable.
Husband: (g): The cable bill needs to be paid.
(g): The person responsible for paying is also responsible for knowing the due
date.
(f)(p): The husband pays the mortgage. (red herring/argumentum ad personam)
(i): The couple should share their financial burdens.
(c): The wife should pay the cable bill.
The wife used both overgeneralization and under exaggeration and undermines the validity of her argument. Note that by rejecting either or both flawed premises her conclusion no longer follows necessarily from the premises. Likewise, the husband used either red herring or argumentum ad personam (depending on your point of view) and as a result, his argument also lacks validity. As an important note, it is the way in which the husband is using the truth that makes his statement into a fallacy. The same information presented, in an alternate manner, would end up diagrammed differently. That is why Mr. and Mrs. Example will probably end up in divorce proceedings in the near future.
So, from here on out when I use these terms, you know what I mean. Also, when I point out a fallacy, I’ll generally name it. It is a good habit to get into, to both stop using fallacies, and to recognize them.