The reason I have this fixation in a lot of my blogs on logic is because I'm in the unfortunate situation of going to a college with only one philosophy teacher, and he doesn't put a high value on logic. He wastes a lot of our time by having us read a lot of irrational nonsense. In classroom and email discussions, I can never advance an argument without somebody taking issue with my use of logic. Consequently, I spend the majority of my time defending logic. You can't reason with people who don't believe in logic, so you have to settle the logic issue before you can argue about anything else.
One day last year, I was just really frustrated with having to defend logic against arguments such as, "You're just using western logic," and "Your use of western logic is biased and dogmatic," which aren't really arguments at all. In my frustration, I wrote this parody. A few people in the class found it entertaining, so I thought I'd post it on my blog. The reference to "speaking differently" comes from an article our teacher had us read by a couple of kooks who thought logic was a matter of personal preference, and they preferred to "speak differently."
A feller walked into the Wingate Inn, and we had the following conversation:
Feller: Hey, can I use your phone?
Sam: Yeah, just be sure to dial 9 to get an outside line.
The feller starts to dial the number, but then stops.
Feller: Did you say I had to dial a 9 to get an outside line?
Sam: No, you don’t have to dial 9. Just dial the number.
Feller: Okay.
He tries to dial the number, but it doesn’t work.
Feller: The phone doesn’t work.
Sam: Did you dial 9 first?
Feller: No, you said I didn’t have to dial 9.
Sam: That’s right. You have to dial 9 first.
Feller: Then why did you just tell me I don’t have to dial 9 first?
Sam: Because you don’t.
Feller: Then why did you say that I do?
Sam: Because you do.
Feller: You're screwing with me.
Sam: Why do you say that?
Feller: Well, first you said I have to dial 9 to get an outside line, and
then you said I don’t have to dial 9 to get an outside line.
Sam: That’s right.
Feller: Well, you’re contradicting yourself. They can’t both be right.
Sam: Oh, you’re just using Western logic.
Feller: Listen, I either have to dial a 9 or I don’t.
Sam: Now you’re being biased and dogmatic.
Feller: You’re being crazy.
Sam: I’m only speaking differently.
Feller: You can say that again.
Sam: I’m not speaking differently.
In the end, “western logic” helped the feller figured out that he actually did have to dial a 9 to get an outside line, and that I was wrong all those times I told him he didn’t. Maybe the phone was being biased and dogmatic, too.
2 comments:
Brian,
Thanks for your comments.
You and I must listen to some of the same people. I actually did hear that lecture by Ravi Zacharias. It was on one of his broadcasts that he has published on his web page.
There was a Hindu guy who used to work where I work, and I got into an interesting discussion with him one day about "truth" and "logic." He claimed that all views were equally true. I said, "Including mine?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Well my view is that your view is wrong. Are you saying that I'm right?" He argued with me at first, but then said, "Yes, for you." I'd do anything to have recorded that conversation. It was a classic. At the end, I finally said, "If you really believe that all views are true, then why are you arguing with me?" You'd think he thought my view was wrong.
I don't remember who it was, but I heard somebody recommend that if you ever get in an argument with somebody who denies the law of non-contradiction, just negate everything they say and claim that they said it. For example:
Jim: My cat is pregant.
Bob: So you're cat is not pregnant, huh?
Jim: I said my cat is pregant.
Bob: Oh, okay, so your cat is not pregnant.
Jim: Bob, listen to me. I said my cat is pregnant.
Bob: Well, Jim, if it's true that your cat is pregnant, then it must also be true that your cat is not pregnant.
Ronald Nash makes the point in his book, Worldviews in Conflict that significant speach is not possible without the law of non-contradiction. Unless you are excluding the opposite of what you say, then you aren't saying anything. "My cat is pregnant," doesn't mean anything if it does not exclude "My cat is not pregnant."
Sam
Brent,
That's great that you got to attend that lecture series. I would like to have done that.
There's a lot of views out there that are easy to refute, because they do the refuting for you. They're self-refuting. It surprises me sometimes how many people believe things that are so obviously self-refuting. I mean self-refuting claims don't just happen to be false, but they are necessarily false. It's impossible for them to be true. The claim that "Words can't accurately convey thought," is self-refuting when understood, yet I heard people say that all the time, and they expect to be understood.
I found your blog because you have Scaling the Secular City by J.P. Moreland on your list of favourite books on your profile, and I have the same book on mine. I just clicked on mine, and it gave me your blog. I'm new to blogging too. The first blog I have on this blog is called something like, "The very first post of my very first blog," and I did it just a couple of weeks ago.
Sam
Post a Comment