Logic To The Rescue

What do you do when something BIG happens in our society (a tragedy like 9/11 or JFK, etc) and you need to formulate an opinion about it? And what if the data you receive from the media and other sources is conflictive, complicated and confusing? Your opinion matters. You're an important part of this society. You want to be on the "right" side of the argument. But how do you really know WHAT TO THINK?

In your individual search for a point of view which you can embrace, you can follow many different paths.

• The simplest one is to simply listen to someone else, perhaps someone in a position of authority or someone you can trust - and support his or her view.

• Another way is to open your ears to a number of opposing views and then try to come up with "your own average opinion". That's a position that neither agrees nor disagrees with any specific authority, but it doesn't forcefully contradict them either. A kind of intellectual agnosticism.

• Finally, you can also choose to arm yourself with as much information as is possible, and thus arrive at a point of view which your logic dictates.

In each of these scenarios you continue to use other people's opinions to reinforce your pre-conceived notions. At some point you might even arrive at a feeling of CERTAINTY. You will then tend to reject (almost as a knee-jerk reaction) any opinions which disagree with yours. It will take a major jolt to make you rethink your position once your mind is made up. We're ALL like that. (Note that each of these three ways applies to people on ALL sides of any argument.)

So how DO you arrive at an opinion about something?

We all have a "sense of logic." Given a sufficient data and scenarios we can understand, we're all perfectly able to draw the correct (i.e. "logical") conclusions.

At this point, rather than attempting a half-assed review of Classical Logic or even Propositional Logic, I thought it might be an interesting idea to approach any one of the hugely divisive issues (like 9/11 or JFK or any other tragedy like that) using a simplified and only vaguely related (and fully made-up) example. (However, when you have a moment, I'd strongly advocate using logical "Truth Tables!")

The Power of Analogy

A good analogy needs not be factual or "the same" as the point in question. In fact it's best if it's not. But it needs to contain the same general principles. Most importantly, it neeeds to be vastly simplified in order to adequately assist a person in finding a method for drawing the correct conclusions.

With this in mind, let me sketch out a ficticious situation, and then ask a few questions which, all going well, just might prove helpful in helping you arrive at conclusions which will transcend this meager example. Those conclusions (or rather the METHOD of arriving at them) might then be applied to any real-world situation.

Here goes.

The situation:
You are the town sheriff and you see the local merchant's car crash into a building. It's going at a leisurely 20 mph, probably didn't notice that building in his way - and bang... the car explodes! Whoa...!

The investigation:
Given these facts, you're now conducting an investigation. You have access to lots of experts. Once their verdicts are delivered you have the following sets of conclusions:

• Expert 1 - Insists that it's only to be expected that when a car strikes a brick wall, it's going to explode. It may have looked strange - but it isn't really. Case solved. Collect insurance.

• Expert 2 - Insists that the car couldn't explode with just a 20mph impact (he also notes that the fuel tank is in the back, far from the impact zone). He proves his case using past accidents of similar kind. He even provides re-enactments and new experiments to prove that such an explosion couldn't happen without other contributing factors. He proposes that a bomb must have been in that car, but is reluctant to speculate as to who might have placed it there and how. While he is shocked to find out that the car has by now been removed from the scene of the accident and has already been scrapped by a junkyard, he doesn't accuse anyone of destruction of evidence - but he insists that a new investigation must be conducted to establish all the facts.

• Expert 3 - Generally agrees with Expert 2, but has a forceful theory about "who" it might have been that planted the bomb in that car and why. He also supports a more thorough investigation but he's already sure of his facts and might as well do without one. He also accuses Expert 1 of being a friend of the merchant and fudging his findings for his benefit.

Initial conclusions:

• Expert 1 says: You saw it happen, right? It exploded, right? That's what happens when you ram a car into a wall. Study your physics. Case closed.

• Expert 2 objects to this over-simplification and says: I did see that it exploded but it couldn't explode like that under those circumstances. The laws of physics prevent it from happening like that.

• Expert 3 injects: I agree with Expert 2, and I also believe I know who did it, how, and why. And I think Expert 1 has an agenda!

Which conclusion would you offer to the people?

• If you agree with Expert 1, experts 2 and 3 will accuse you of a "cover up." People who respect Expert 1 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is, (b) Because it's the simplest explanation and relieves them of any further duty to strain their intelect - and waste time on this case.
  

• If you agree with Expert 2, Expert 1 will call you an idiot, and Expert 3 will insist you're not going far enough in your conclusions. People who respect Expert 2 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is (though to a lesser extent), (b) Because they have thought about the actual mechanism of the accident and their logical conclusions agree with his findings - but... (c) They will object to Expert 3's conclusions as too radical and un-proven.
  

• If you agree with Expert 3, Expert 1 will call you a "conspiracy theorist" and Expert 2 will be too afraid to commit to Expert 3's theory. People who respect Expert 3 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is (though to a lesser extent still), (b) Because they believe the findings of Expert 2, (c) Because their logic leads them to the same conclusions regarding the potential perpetrators, and... (d) Because they have long been suspicious of the implicated perpetrators. And this scenario fits their suspicions perfectly.
  

You gauge the reaction of your community by reading the town paper (which is owned by the merchant's brother-in-law)

• You find that the town paper emphatically agrees with Expert 1. The editorial states that Expert 2 is just looking for non-existent complications in a very simple case... And you discover that it states that Expert 3 obviously hates the community in which he lives and is in fact a traitor... and a dangerous conspiracy nut who should be locked up. You also read stories about people who believe in either Expert 2 or Expert 3 and how they too are either idiots or conspiracy theorists or agent provocateurs.
  

• You speak to folks on the street and are not surprised to find that the vast majority believe what the paper is endorsing. Or at least they SAY so.

• You discover there's a growing division between the exponents of the first view and those who believe the "alternative" views. The latter ones are beginning to be marginalized.

• You receive an angry phone call from the editor of the town paper expressing surprise that you're still undecided as to which expert to believe.

• Everyone is now waiting for YOU to weigh in on the issue. You're the sheriff after all.

You announce your conclusion.

• EITHER one of the experts COULD be right.
• In the simple situation described above... which conclusion do YOU announce to the people?
• And... why?
• And how do you think your decision - whatever it may be - will affect the people in each of the three groups?
• What do you think the town paper will print - about you and about the case - after you announce your decision?
• How will your public conclusion affect your standing as sheriff of this town?

And now that you've reached your conclusion... write a song about it!