This is a followup to my post on logical thinking.  Here’s something I said :-

Over the next few weeks I’ll analyze some arguments commonly presented (and sadly, accepted) by people that are about as valid as 1+1=11.  Just because it seems logical, it doesn’t mean it is.

I mentioned one of my pet peeves related to arguments in the previous post.  Here are a few more that annoy me to no end.   I am not just ranting about my pet peeves.  I am mentioning these because it is my belief that many disagreements stem from people’s inability to think logically, rather than differences in their principles.  We would all be more agreeable and happier if we all had the ability to correctly present and analyze arguments.

Before I start, I must mention that labeling an argument incorrect only implies that the conclusion does not follow premises presented.  It does not make a judgement about the conclusion (eg: “Every time she snores, it’s night.  She is snoring.  Therefore, it must be nighttime“.  It may well be night, but the above argument is still illogical). 
Read the rest of this entry »

I am going to do an off-beat post today (but it still indirectly relates to local issues).

I’ve always maintained that people should be required to take logic, political science and personal finance in high schools.  It’s absurd that we hand over a diploma to someone for finishing 12 years of schooling (not including kindergarten and junior kindergarten) without even teaching them how to balance a cheque book (still useful even though we don’t use cheque books anymore) or even the very basics of logical thinking. 

Heck theoretically voting could even be a factor of someone successfully completing logic and political science courses.  Is 18 a magic number where people suddenly become responsible enough to vote?  I would argue that a 16 year old with understanding of deductive reasoning and knowledge of political system is more entitled to the right to vote than a 20 year old who doesn’t.  I am not actually proposing this, I am merely stating this to show how strongly I feel about giving people proper tools to survive in the complex world we now live in. 

I honestly cringe every time I see questionable reasoning from people.  Even journalists show that sometimes.  Okay I lie, journalists do it a lot but I think that’s intentional because that’s what pleases their readers.  This allows politicians to control the masses a lot more than they should be able to do in a democracy. 

Over the next few weeks I’ll analyze some arguments commonly presented (and sadly, accepted) by people that are about as valid as 1+1=11.  Just because it seems logical, it doesn’t mean it is. 

My pet-peeve for today?  It’s when people switch their frame of references and arguments depending on the topic they are dealing with.  Pro-life advocates suddenly became okay with the death penalty; a person would argue for gun ownership based on individual rights until he’s blue and yet would support lower privacy safeguard and higher spying power for the government based on the security; same person may argue for a smaller government based on the mistrust of governments but then happily give up civil liberties that require huge trust in governments. 

Do you have examples of your own?