Logic and fallacy

Guest editorial by MICHAEL SHACKLETON

Peter Abelard, the 12th century writer, noted in his work Dialectica that logic is not the science of using arguments but of discerning the validity of arguments. In Abelard’s time, the validity of an argument needed testing by applying the tools of the logician, essential for intellectual debates and discussions, most of all in the rarefied world of prelates and politicians.

“It is a logical fallacy to cloak the entire Church with the mantle of insincerity just because its membership is not as perfect as the media and society expect it to be” Auguste Rodin’s statue “The Thinker”.

Words had to have precise meanings, common to all who used them. If not, the debate would be inconclusive and frustrating and no progress would be made in the acquisition of knowledge and understanding.

There were certain logical fallacies to be avoided, which sharp minds could spot in an instant, having been grounded in the art of public speaking and being competent in distinguishing ambiguous terms and the heat of emotional outbursts from cold facts and logically reasoned conclusions.

It did not take long in history before the need to discern the validity of an argument gave ground to the steamrolling tactic of winning any argument by crushing the counter-argument with loudness, bluster, confused use of terminology and disregard for cool thinking.

In the conflict, the original thrust of a proposition to be debated was lost in the muddied waters of what in today’s terms is the spin doctor’s suave rejection of it on grounds ranging from misunderstanding to unjust and wild attacks on persons and principles.

Think of the way in which the Great Schism between the Western and Eastern Church arose in the 11th century.

Instead of cool heads and the need for some kind of rapprochement, mutual excommunications arising from downright prejudice and fallacious premises dumped the Christian world into a situation where it is still gravely wounded.

The same could be said of how cool logical thinking was overwhelmed in the bitter accusations flung by the Reformers at Rome, and back again, splitting Western Christianity disastrously.

Listening to how others receive our reasoned arguments and finding ways and means to come to a mutual agreement, or even tolerance, is essential, especially now that the political parties will be back in parliament and the Church will be called upon to comment where necessary.

The good image of the Church has unhappily been tarnished by much-publicised reports of scandalous goings-on among the ranks of clergy and religious. The Church consequently is viewed by many in the media and the broader society as not sincere when it debates with the secular world.

It is a logical fallacy to cloak the entire Church with the mantle of insincerity just because its membership is not as perfect as the media and society expect it to be. It is up to all Catholics now to keep cool heads and recall the injunction of St Paul in 2 Timothy 4:1-5, and “to make the preaching of the Good News your life’s work”.

Both among political parties and religious groupings, it is fundamental to healthy discourse that those involved are aware of the common fallacies that lead to circular reasoning and dead-end conclusions.

Ridiculing and misrepresenting the other’s opinions, shifting the burden of proof, equivocation, assuming that something that is true for some is true for all. These are common examples of fallacious logic we find among public figures and even in private discussions.

Let this be the Year of Faith in which we are faithful to the truth and respectful of the opinions of others while not fearing to point out any rational inconsistencies they may appeal to.