CÓMO DISCUTIR CON UN LÓGICO/ How to argue with someone who always relies on logic using their own weapons? (video summary)

 CÓMO DISCUTIR CON UN LÓGICO

TRANSCRIPT DE ESTE VIDEO 

• How to argue with someone who always relies on logic using their own weapons?
• Is logic the path to truth?

Key insights

• 🧠 Many advances in science and technology have been made thanks to the rules imposed by logic, but it is crucial to understand that logic cannot always be relied upon and may not be a neutral arbiter in all situations.
• 🧠 Logic helps us discover inconsistencies, such as when our beliefs contradict each other, forcing us to question their validity.
• 🧠 The fact that it took mathematicians 300 years to prove Fermat's theorem highlights the informative and challenging nature of mathematical proofs.
• 🧠 The principles of logic have been debated for centuries, suggesting that it may not be a fair referee in discussions.
• 🎲 Classical logic is a "loaded die" that accepts certain types of answers and eliminates others, making it an unfair arbiter in debates.
• 🌍 The use of logic in different languages adds to the disputes and lack of unanimous answers in philosophical debates.

Have you ever been in a situation where you're arguing with someone who uses logic to support their arguments? Does it frustrate you when they continually tell you that your arguments or your stance are illogical? How do you respond? Insulting them is not a good idea; in fact, it would be giving them a point. Aristotle long ago classified it as an ad hominem fallacy when one tries to deflect by attacking our interlocutor. So, stop, don't do it. You'll only give your opponent a point, and they might even offend you in return.

Instead, think. How can you defend your points using their own tools? First and foremost, consider whether this person is genuinely a logic investigator. If that's the case, it's best to remain silent or pay attention to what they're saying. But if that's not the case and you want to continue, we'll present you with some arguments you could use in your next encounter. Pay attention.

Why Appeal to Logic?

It's important to understand why appealing to logic is a useful weapon in debates. For a long time, it has been thought that, in the realm of science and debates, logic is like a referee in a soccer match. It should be a neutral judge who ensures that certain basic and clear rules are followed. Logic is seen as something that is an empty vessel without content or information. It is believed to be more like a rule. And what this tool or rule regulates are inconsistencies, things that aren't even a possibility.

The idea that logic has no information and is a neutral referee has allowed certain modes of thinking to be accepted in science while discarding others. It's important to emphasize that logic has so far been a useful referee, and many advances in science and technology are due to the rules it imposes.

However, this doesn't mean that you can always appeal to logic. It's even less certain that logic is always a neutral referee. In fact, it might not be and may be more like a player on one of the teams.

First Argument: Logic is a Player, Not a Referee

What does it mean that logic is neutral and has no information? It means that, for example, when someone tells you it's true that either Aaron or Diego kissed Frida in the courtyard, and then you find out that Diego never went to the courtyard, you deduce that it was Aaron who kissed Frida. You arrive at this conclusion thanks to logic, regardless of whether you saw Juan or Diego do anything.

Logic also helps us discover inconsistencies. For example, if you believe that there are no honest politicians and think that Diego is a politician and is also honest, then you conclude that at least one of your beliefs must be false. This, too, you deduce through pure logic, independent of the information contained within it.

However, not all reasoning is as simple as this. There are very lengthy structures of reasoning. In mathematics, there are theorems derived from certain axioms by logical rules, but proving logically that they do so can require hundreds of pages, if they can be proven at all. Fermat's Theorem, for example, tormented mathematicians for 300 years until someone finally solved it.

Do you think that a proof that took 300 years to achieve is NOT informative? If you think it is informative, then perhaps logic is not a set of neutral rules but rather another player on the field who always supports one of the teams in the competition.

Second Argument: If It Were a Referee, It Would Be an Impartial One

But even if logic were a referee and not a player, it's also not true that it's a fair referee. The principles of logic have been debated for centuries. Take, for example, the principle of excluded middle. This principle states that something is either true or not true, it's raining or it's not raining. But some philosophers and logicians argue that this rule doesn't account for borderline cases, like when it's not raining but drizzling, or when someone is bald but has a few hairs left. To explain such cases, other types of logics, called fuzzy logics, were developed. Getting back to the point, what's important is that classical logic is already a response to a certain type of debate, it's already a loaded die to accept a certain type of answers and eliminate others.

Another clear example where logic is an unfair referee is in the case of contradictions. A contradiction occurs when there are incompatible propositions, like saying it's raining and it's not raining. Classical logicians think contradictions are unacceptable. However, there are other non-classical logics that accept some paradoxes. They believe that these are like black holes where things can be both true and false at the same time.

Before making this argument, you should know that classical logic has tried to resist these and other challenges. Nevertheless, you should let your opponent know that all these points are subject to debate among professional and expert logicians, nothing mystical and entirely rational.

As in many philosophical debates, in these fields, there is no unanimous answer, and for some, these disputes exist because logic is used in different languages. Still, what is clear is that logic is not a controversy-free territory. It's not beyond doubt that it's a clear, impartial, and neutral judge that everyone desires. It's not so clear that it's a smooth, paved path to truth, although most of the time it's quite useful, and we would like it to be so.

It's also true that there is a fairly established consensus on which principles of classical logic we should accept, but this is by convention, not by the nature of logic itself.

What do you think?

If you want to learn more about this topic, look up the work of Timothy Williamson; we've provided some links of interest HERE.

https://amzn.to/3tobXXF https://amzn.to/48HqDBo

SUMMARY

Logic is a useful tool in discussions, but it is not always neutral and cannot always be relied upon, as it is a controversial subject with no unanimous answer and its principles are based on convention rather than inherent truth.

• 00:00 💡 When arguing with someone who always appeals to logic, it is best to avoid offending them and instead defend your points using the same tools, while also considering if they are truly a logical thinker or not.
• 01:02 🔍 Logic is a useful tool in discussions, but it is not always neutral and cannot always be relied upon.
• 02:02 🔍 Logic is neutral and helps us deduce conclusions based on information, such as discovering inconsistencies in our beliefs.
• 02:50 💡 Not all reasoning can be deduced by pure logic, as some theorems require extensive proofs that can take centuries to achieve.
• 03:22 🔍 Logic is not a neutral set of rules, but rather a player that supports one side in an argument, and even if it were a referee, it wouldn't be fair because the principles of logic have been debated for centuries.
• 03:54 🔍 Classical logic is a response to certain debates but does not explain cases like contradictions, which can be accepted in non-classical logic.
• 05:11 🔍 Logic is a controversial subject with no unanimous answer due to debates between professional logicians and rational experts, as it is used in different languages.
• 05:32 🔍 The nature of logic is not always clear, but there is a consensus on the principles of classical logic, which are based on convention rather than inherent truth.

COMPREHENSION TEST: 

**Question 1:** What is the primary subject of the text/video?

A. Soccer matches

B. The principle of excluded middle

C. The role of logic in debates

D. Fermat's Theorem

**Question 2:** Which of the following best describes the author's first perspective on logic?

A. Logic is a neutral referee in debates.

B. Logic is like a rule that regulates inconsistencies.

C. Logic is always a fair referee.

D. Logic is a controversial and mystical subject.

**Question 3:** What is the author's stance regarding the use of logic?

A. Logic should be employed in all debates.

B. Logic is not always a reliable tool in debates.

C. Logic is always a fair and neutral judge.

D. Logic is a mystical concept.

**Question 4:** What is the primary point of the first argument?

A. Logic is never useful in debates.

B. Logic is an impartial referee.

C. Logic is sometimes an unfair player in debates.

D. Logic is like a soccer match referee.

**Question 5:** According to the text/video, which logical principle(s) is/are debated by philosophers and logicians?

A. The principle of excluded middle

B. The principle of non-contradiction

C. The principle of double negation

D. The principle of identity

**Question 6:** What does the text suggest about classical logic's view of contradictions?

A. Classical logicians accept contradictions as valid.

B. Classical logic dismisses contradictions as unacceptable.

C. Contradictions are clear and uncontroversial in logic.

D. Contradictions are used to simplify logical reasoning.

**Question 7:** What is the author's stance on classical logic's view of contradictions?

A. Classical logic is the only valid form of logic.

B. Classical logic is subject to debate and challenges.

C. Classical logic has no paradoxes.

D. Contradictions are always unacceptable in any form of logic.

**Question 8:** What is the primary point of the second argument?

A. Logic is beyond doubt and controversy.

B. Classical logic accepts all types of answers.

C. Logic is used in different languages.

D. Logic is not a controversy-free subject.

**Question 9:** Which of the following summarizes the author's position on logic?

A. Logic is a mystical and irrational concept.

B. Logic is always an impartial and clear referee.

C. Logic is subject to debate and challenges.

D. Logic is beyond doubt and universally accepted.

**Question 10:** What is the author's view on the principles of classical logic?

A. They are undisputed and universally accepted.

B. They are based on the nature of logic itself.

C. They are subject to debate and a matter of convention.

D. They are irrelevant in debates.

Answers:

TRANSCRIPT ESPAÑOL:

¿Han estado en una situación discutiendo con alguien que apela a la lógica para sustentar sus argumentos? ¿Te desespera que continuamente te diga que tus argumentos o tu postura es ilógica? ¿Cómo contestarle? Ofenderlo no es una buena idea, de hecho sería precisamente darle un punto. Desde hace mucho Aristóteles calificó como falacia ad hominem cuando uno intenta salirse por la tangente atacando a nuestro interlocutor. Así que detente, no lo hagas.  Sólo le darás un punto a tu adversario y además podría ofenderte de vuelta.  

Mejor piensa. ¿Cómo defender tus puntos utilizando sus mismas herramientas? Antes que nada reflexiona  si realmente esa persona es un investigador de lógica. Si ese es el caso lo mejor será quedarse callado o poner atención en lo que uno dice. Pero si ese no es el caso y esta y quieres seguir, te presentamos algunos argumentos que podrías utilizar en tu próxima afronta. Pon atención. 

¿Por qué se apela a la lógica?

Es importante que tengas claro por qué apelar a la lógica es una arma útil en las discusiones. Desde hace mucho se ha pensado que, en el terreno de la ciencia y los debates,  la lógica es como un árbitro de un partido de soccer. Tiene que ser un juez neutral que vigila que se sigan ciertas reglas básicas y claras se sigan.  La lógica se piensa como algo que un jarrón vacío de contenido o información. Se cree que más más bien es como una regla. Y lo que esta herramienta o regula son las inconsistencias, aquello que ni siquiera es una posibilidad de ser. 

La idea de que la lógica no tiene información, y que es un árbitro neutral, ha permitido que en la ciencia se permitan ciertos modos de pensar y que descarten otros. Es importante subrayar que la lógica hasta ahora ha sido un árbitro útil, y muchos avances de la ciencia y la tecnología se deben a las reglas que impone. 

Sin embargo, esto no quiere decir que siempre se pueda apelar a la lógica. Mucho menos que la lógica siempre sea un árbitro neutral. De hecho quizá no lo sea, y sea más parecido a un jugador de uno de los equipos. 

Primer argumento: la lógica es un jugador y no un árbitro

¿Qué quiere decir que la lógica sea neutral y no tenga información? Con eso se quiere decir que por ejemplo, cuando te dicen que es verdad que o Aaron o Diego besaron a Frida en el patio, y luego te enteras que Diego nunca fue al patio, entonces deduces que fue Aarón quien besó a Frida. Esto lo concluyes gracias a la lógica, independientemente de si viste a Juan o a Diego hacer cualquier cosa. 

La lógica también nos ayuda a descubrir inconsistencias. Por ejemplo, si crees que no existen los políticos honestos y piensas que Diego es político, y que también es honesto, entonces concluyes que al menos una de tus creencias debe ser falsa. Esto también lo deduces por pura lógica, independientemente de la información contenida en ella. 

Sin embargo, no todos los razonamientos son tan simples. Hay estructuras de razonamiento muy largas. En las matemáticas hay algunos teoremas que se derivan de ciertos axiomas por reglas lógicas, pero probar lógicamente que así lo hacen requiere cientos de páginas. Eso si es que se logran probar. El teorema de Fermat, por ejemplo, torturó a los matemáticos por 300 años, hasta que alguien logró resolverlo. 

¿Te parece que NO es informativa una prueba que tomó 300 años lograrse? SI piensas que sí es informativa, entonces quizá la lógica no es un conjunto de reglas neutrales, sino más bien un jugador más en la cancha que siempre apoyará más a uno de los equipos en la contienda. 

2do argumento: si fuera un árbitro, es uno imparcial

Pero incluso si la lógica fuera un árbitro y no un jugador, tampoco es cierto que es un árbitro justo.  Los principios de la lógica se han debatido durante siglos.  Por ejemplo, la regla del tercero excluso. Este principio dice que algo es, o no es el caso, que llueve o no llueve. Pero algunos filósofos y lógicos dicen esta regla no explica algunos casos frontera, como cuando no llueve y chispea, o como cuando alguien es calvo aunque tenga unos pocos pelos. Para explicar tales casos se desarrollaron otro tipo de lógicas,  llamadas lógicas difusas. Volviendo al punto, lo importante es que la lógica clásica ya es una respuesta a cierto tipo de debate, ya es un dado cargado para aceptar cierto tipo de respuestas y eliminar otras. 

Otro terreno  donde claramente la lógica es un árbitro que no es justo es en el de las contradicciones. Una contradicción ocurre cuando hay proposiciones incompatibles, como cuando decimos que llueve y no llueve. Los lógicos clásicos piensan que las contradicciones no son aceptables. Sin embargo hay otro tipo de lógicas no clásicas que aceptan algunas paradojas. Creen que estas son como agujeros negros donde las cosas pueden ser verdaderas pero también falsas al mismo tiempo. 

Antes de argumentar de este modo debes saber que la lógica clásica ha intentado resistirse a estos y otros desafíos.  Sin embargo debes hacerle saber a tu contrincante que todos estos puntos son materia de debate entre lógicos profesionales y expertos, nada místicos y completamente racionales. 

Como en muchos debates de la filosofía, en estos terrenos no hay una respuesta unánime y para algunos existen estas disputas porque se utiliza la lógica en lenguajes diferentes. Aún así, lo que queda claro es que la lógica no es un terreno libre de controversias.  No está fuera de toda duda que sea un juez límpido, imparcial y neutral que todos desean. No está tan claro que sea un camino llano y pavimentado hacia la verdad,  aunque la mayoría de las veces nos sea bastante útil, y nos gustaría que fuera así. 

También es cierto que hay un consenso bastante cimentado sobre cuáles principios de la lógica clásica debemos aceptar, pero esto es por convención, no por la naturaleza misma de la lógica. 

¿Tu qué piensas? Revisa el texto original de Timothy Williamson; de donde está basado este video. Si quires comprar el libro aquí lo puedes encontrar. 

https://amzn.to/3tobXXF https://amzn.to/48HqDBo