Readers of this blog have witnessed the torture of logic over the years, so it might be time to revisit its basics, which I think we all agree is vital for a good argument. I believe we have all studied logic, but let's review the basics of Aristotelian logic:
In summary, from those whose youth was a long time ago, you start with your observations to derive facts. You can then deduce new facts to build theorems. However, you must always beware of any regress of reasons, where your beliefs interfere with your ability to follow the track of reason.
Thus, if you have discovered that A => B, and B => C, then you can be certain that A => C. I prefer the mathematical notation as it reveals the basics: You can write A => B as ~A v B: "not A or B". That shows that they only false statement is B is false and A is true. Every other state of A and B returns a true statement. In particular, if B is true, there is no way to predict whether A is true or false.
The famous test is "If the bird is a swan, the bird is coloured white". Thanks to the age of exploration that followed the age of reason, we know this deduction to be false. Yet, every European would have suspected it as true for thousands of years until the eighteenth century. The statement did not become false at that time; it was always false. What changed was that more facts became available. So except in the field of Pure Mathematics, every belief is one piece of evidence away from becoming false.
Einstein spoke with clever irony when he quipped:
So let us revisit some past statements and test their logic.
I would struggle to support anything coming out of the Russian government right now
Can this statement be true? Members of the Russian army has been charged with committing brutal acts during their illegal invasion of the Ukraine. These charges include rape, murder, robbery, targeting of civilians and indiscriminate use of long range munitions. If proven, the Russian army will have demonstrated themselves to be evil, by the Judeo-Christian definition. Does this mean that all Russians are evi?. No. In fact, many Russians have protested again the inhumanity of the invasion, and have been punished. Does this mean that all members of the Russian army are evil? No. In fact, many Russian prisoners of war in the Ukraine have openly spoken of their confusion as to why they were even attacking, and their relief at surrendering. (Of course, you must assume they are trying to paint themselves as less culpable of crimes than their commanders, but the consistency of that message suggests that it may be true. Again, it is not proven true.)
Who murdered all these civilians in Bucha?
However, the evidence of rape, murder of looting is inescapable. Python had the experience of being part of a murder conviction a decade ago: five men ran up a street, four walked back and those four were found guilty of murder via a mechanism called Joint Criminal Enterprise, even though we never worked out which one stabbed the victim.
In the Ukraine, a poorly led army charged in and hideous crimes happened. An Australian court would have no trouble reaching a Joint Criminal Enterprise.
Hang on Python; gotcha; how do you reach the assertion that the Russian Army was poorly led? Fair cop - that is an inference not a deduction
- the Russian army is ten times the size of the Ukrainian army
- the Russian military equipment was modern, which the Ukrainians were equipped with Soviet-era arms
- the Russian army had numerical and qualitative superiority in every type of munition, plane and tank
- the Russian army had the benefit of surprise
and yet within a couple of weeks, before significant Western munitions could arrive and certainly before the Ukrainian militia could be trained in its use, the Russian offenses were blunted. I can see no other cause. Perhaps the better motivation of the Ukrainian patriot, but again that is a matter of leadership. Somewhat like Putin, I struggle to see the difference between a Russian and a Ukrainian; it is not like one is flesh and blood and the other are alien lizards from the inside of our moon.
I close this section to note that despite the bodies, despite the evidence of violated women, despite the destroyed apartment blocks and power stations, the Russian government has not just denied that their army is culpable, but has defending their actions. If the crimes are established, this government has made itself complicit by covering up the criminality of their agents.
So, can I claim that the statement "I would struggle to support anything coming out of the Russian government right now" is logical. Yes, absolutely I can. I think it is very likely that:
- The Russian Army is committing war crimes
- The Russian government is aware of these crimes
- The Russian government is trying to obfuscate to distract world opinion from their behaviour
It is implausible, but entirely possible that there are no war crimes and I am wrong in my suspicions. However, it is also possible that I am completely correct and am justly calling out evil when I see it. While evidence is being gathered, I have to act on what I know: crimes are happening and the Russian army is the most likely suspect. While I struggle to support anything coming out of the Russian government right now, it does not mean I would reject everything. If the Russian government were to made a statement that their invasion of Ukraine was illegal, that they shall leave by the end of the year and pay from the reconstruction of damaged Ukrainian infrastructure, I would warmly welcome such a statement and openly congratulate them. In summary:
- I suspect the Russian government is still continuing down the path of evil,
- I will continue to listen to their statements
- Should they acknowledge their error and seek to do good, I will applaud them.
Finally, let's deal with the dead cat.
It is a common rhetorical technique when an argument is going against you, to "throw a dead cat on the table and say 'Look!'". Everyone runs around trying to get rid of it and forgets the topic. So, is it logical for Python to discuss his views about the evils being wrought in Ukraine when there are evil pedophiles grooming children? Yes it is. All evils should be condemned. However, humans should only be condemned when the evidence has been fairly tested. Just as I cannot assert at this time that the Russian Army is guilty of war crimes, neither can I assert that any individual is a pedophile until it is proven, no matter how much I might suspect them. Some agnostic friends have asked me how I can remain in the Catholic Church when so many priests have been found guilty of pedophilia or covering it up. I accept the criticism, but using logic, I can deduce that just because many Catholics are guilty of this crime, it is not a Catholic behaviour, and I can support the Church in eliminating the scourge.
Logic can triumph!
Comments