Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull: How to tell the difference

by Bernard M. Patten

  In that context, Alice’s reactions seem right because they are based on reality because Carroll drew upon the comedies and tragedies of the schoolroom for his fun. Like all good writers, Lewis Carroll wrote what he knew. Like all good teachers, he knew and loved his students well.

  Notes

  1. Lewis Carroll, Symbolic Logic, in Mathematical Recreations of Lewis Carroll (New York: Dover, 1958), p. xv.

  2. Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, illust. John Tenniel and colored by Fritz Kredel (New York: Random House, 1946), p. 3. All references to Alice are to this edition.

  3. Ibid.

  4. Ibid., p. 5.

  5. Ibid., p. 12.

  6. Ibid.

  7. Ibid., p. 19.

  8. Ibid., p. 25.

  9. Ibid., p. 26.

  10. Ibid., pp. 26-27.

  11. This is the way I remember the skit, and I have a fairly good memory.

  12. Ibid., p. 59.

  13. Ibid., p. 60.

  p. 328 14. Ibid.

  15. Ibid., p. 64.

  16. Ibid.

  17. Ibid., pp. 71-72.

  18. Quoted in Martin Gardner, ed. The Annotated Alice (New York: Norton, 1990), p. 65.

  19. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, pp. 72-73.

  20. Ibid., p. 73.

  21. Ibid.

  22. Lewis Carroll, The Diaries of Lewis Carroll, ed. Roger Lancelyn Green (London: Cassell, 1953), p. 42.

  23. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, pp. 74-75.

  24. Ibid.

  25. Ibid., p. 75.

  26. Ibid., p. 78.

  27. The original story came from an article in Columbia College Today.

  28. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, p. 77.

  29. Ibid., p. 84.

  30. Ibid., pp. 85-86.

  31. Ibid., p. 93.

  32. Ibid., p. 106.

  33. Ibid.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Ibid., p. 101.

  36. Ibid., p. 112.

  37. Ibid., p. 113.

  38. Ibid., p. 114.

  39. Ibid.

  40. Ibid.

  41. Ibid., pp. 129-31.

  42. Ibid., p. 132.

  43. Ibid., pp. 133-34.

  44. Ibid., p. 135.

  45. Ibid.

  46. Ibid., p. 137.

  47. Ibid., p. 141.

  48. From the movie A Beautiful Mind.

  49. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, p. 141.

  50. Ibid.

  51. In Gardner, Annotated Alice, pp. 187-88.

  52. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, p. 141.

  53. Ibid.

  p. 329 54. Gardner, Annotated Alice, pp. 222-23.

  55. Ibid., p. 225.

  56. Ibid.

  57. Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, p. 142.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Ibid.

  60. Ibid.

  61. Ibid., pp. 143, 146.

  Vale (Farewell)

  p. 331 Although Lewis Carroll was quick to point out that unlike the fairy tales (à la the Brothers Grimm or Hans Christian Andersen), his stories have no moral, I think he might have been hinting in that direction when he showed the general pandemonium in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland at the end of the trial at the book’s conclusion.

  That bedlam is the result that we can expect when thinking stops and emotions ride fierce and unrestrained. That mayhem and anarchy are the opposite of what Carroll loved so dearly—clear, rational thinking and right behavior. His moral, if there were one, might have been that bad thinking results in chaos. Whether that was his moral is not particularly important.

  What is important, what really counts, is that it is the truth.

  Footnotes

  F01 Terms in boldface are defined in the glossary.

  Glossary

  p. 333 amphiboly: A double meaning, especially when it arises from a faulty grammatical construction. Examples: “Wanted: High school student for baking.” Or “We dispense with accuracy.” (Don’t trust a pharmacist who can’t express clear thoughts.) Or how about the advice of the Delphic oracle: “If Croesus goes to war, he will destroy a great empire.” Croesus did attack Cyrus of Persia who destroyed Croesus’ empire, Lydia.

  argument: Originally “proof” or “evidence.” Now often a reason or reasons offered for or against something. In this book, argument is used in the traditional sense. As it is usually used in logic, however, a better term would probably be demonstration.

  argumentum: Latin for proof, argument, subject, contents, or matter related to proof.

  argumentum ad baculum: Appeal to force—a grave error, wherein the argument has degenerated into a fight. Might doesn’t make right, despite the maxim to the contrary. Because someone defeats another person by force doesn’t mean that the winner was right or wrong, noble or ignoble, supported by God or by the Devil, and so forth. It means merely that he won the battle. Resort to force is not a rational argument. It is quite the opposite.

  argumentum ad hominem: An error wherein a person, not his or her argument, is attacked.

  p. 334 argumentum ad ignorantiam: An error wherein the argument appeals to ignorance, asserting that something must be true because it has not been proven false.

  argumentum ad populum: An error wherein persuasion is attempted by appealing to a popular sentiment, such as patriotism, loyalty, tradition, custom, and such. Argumentum ad populum is diversionary because whether the group thinks something is not a reason why that something is correct. A group can be right or wrong, and this must be determined by evidence, not by consensus. In most cases, the argument ad populum doesn’t even reflect the view of the cited group as determined scientifically. Instead, the argument more likely reflects the speaker’s view.

  argumentum ad verecundiam: Latin for “proof based on respect for.” This is an argument that cites authority as the reason that a speaker should be believed. In most cases, the respect is for authority. The argumentum ad verecundiam is based (irrationally) on a proof (argumentum) based on respect for authority (verecundiam). Arguments based on authority are not reasonable arguments because there is no special reason that an authority would be right. In fact, the argument ad verecundiam is often a diversionary technique that distracts from the facts in evidence and toward potential error.

  bathing machine: Bathing machines were small locker rooms on wheels. Horses pulled them into the sea to the depth desired by the bather, who then emerged modestly through a door facing the sea. A huge umbrella in back of the machine concealed the bather from public view.

  begging the question: An error in clear thinking and in informal logic wherein something is asserted as true but needs to be proven.

  conceit: A fanciful, witty notion that is often a striking metaphor that is strained and arbitrary. A conceit is a false analogy gone further awry.

  contradiction: A statement that is false for all possible circumstances. Philosophers like to put this by saying that contradictions are necessarily false. A sentence S is logically false, therefore a contradiction, if, p. 335 and only if, every row of its truth table assigns the value F (false). Two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true. For example:

  It is raining.

  It is not raining.

  1 and 2 contradict each other. Compare this with contraries.

  contraries: In logic, the situation where two statements are so related that only one can be true but both can be false. For example:

  The present king of France is bald.

  The present king of France is not bald.

  If there were a present king of France, the two statements, 1 and 2, could not both be simultaneously true. As there is no present king of France, both statements are false, and therefore, 1 and 2 are contraries and not contradictions.

  deduction: Proceeding from the general to the particular to reach a conclusion supported by evidence.

  distributed: A term is distributed if, and only if, it refers
(as either subject or predicate) to the whole class that it names.

  fallacy: A false or mistaken idea or opinion, an error in reasoning, or a defect in argument, especially one that appears to be sound but isn’t.

  falsify: To show to be false.

  generalize: To infer that what has been found true in all known cases is true of all cases, even including those that have not yet been observed. In most scientific reasoning, the scientist makes a “leap of faith” from the particular to the general; this is the basis for the tentative nature of scientific hypothesis. Not all generalization is refutable, however, especially when the generalization covers all the known and all the possible observations. For instance, I am generalizing when I say all the people in my immediate family are doctors. Since my wife, my son, my daughter, and I are all doctors, and since I have no other people in my p. 336 immediate family, my assertion is true of all the possible cases and can’t be refuted. Thus, generalizations about true particulars can be and often are absolutely true and should be defended as true absolutely.

  inductive: Proceeding from the particular to the general to reach a conclusion supported by evidence.

  logic: Scientifically, the study of the strength of the evidential link between the premises and the conclusions of arguments. In this book, logic is sometimes loosely used as the art of correct and reasonable thinking. Either definition makes logic a form of evidence itself, if evidence is defined as a sign that leads to truth. However, in the contemporary field of academic logic, logic and truth are disjoined at a fundamental level. Logic, according to this academic view, tells us the degree of reasonable confidence that we can have in the truth of an argument’s conclusion, were the premises true. It cannot tell us which or if the premises are true. For that reason, logic is a theory of truth preservation, informing us how truth can best be preserved across inferential links but not how to determine what is true to begin with. One consequence is that any full evaluation of argument requires both logical and factual analysis. The validity idea is not a shortcoming of logic any more than factual disciplines’ dependence on logic is their shortcoming. The benefit of the disciplinary arrangement enables logic to contribute distinctively to the rational evaluation of arguments. According to the academic view, logic’s task of truth preservation must be clearly defined and distinguished from the task of truth determination. Hence, academics will not call an argument true, as they believe arguments cannot be true (or false). In this view, arguments can only be valid or invalid, sound or unsound.

  logical deduction: Reasoning from the general to the specific individual cases or particular facts or from premises to a logically reasonable conclusion (as opposed to logical induction). Remember this by this mnemonic: De is Latin for “from”; duc is a Latin root meaning “leads.” Therefore, deduction is that which leads away from the general and to the specific particular.

  logical induction: Reasoning from individual cases or particular facts to a general conclusion (as opposed to logical deduction). Remember p. 337 this by this mnemonic: In is Latin for “into”; duc is a Latin root meaning “leads.” Therefore, that which leads into the general from the particular is inductive.

  major premise: That which contains the major term that is the predicate of the conclusion of the syllogism.

  middle term: In a syllogism, that which appears in both premises.

  minor premise: That which contains the minor term that is the subject of the conclusion of the syllogism.

  obloquy: Verbal abuse of a person or a thing; censorious vituperation, especially when widespread or general.

  optative: The grammatical form in Greek that expresses desire or a wish. Hence, wishful thinking.

  pleonasm: The use of more words than are necessary for the expression of an idea. Examples: “plenty enough” and “very unique.” If a thing is unique, it is one of a kind by definition and doesn’t need the word “very” to emphasize its uniqueness.

  positivism: A system of philosophy basing knowledge solely on data of sense experience. Originated by Auguste Comte (1798-1857), it was based on observable, scientific facts and their relations to each other. Positivist philosophy strictly rejects speculation about or search for ultimate origins. Comte is best known for his “law of the three stages”—the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive. In stage one, humans saw processes as the work of supernatural powers. In the second stage, humans explained them by means of abstract ideas. In the last stage, humans accumulated data (observed facts) and determined relationships among them. Comte believed that astronomy, physics, chemistry, and biology had already evolved through these three stages.

  premise: A previous statement that serves as the basis for the advancement of reasons in an argument, or either of two propositions of a syllogism from which a conclusion is drawn. Remember this by the mnemonic: Premise comes from the Latin praemittere (prae = before, p. 338 mittere = send, praemittere = to send before). When an argument is cast in standard form, the premise is always sent before the conclusion. In a syllogism, the major premise contains the predicate of the conclusion; the minor premise contains the subject of the conclusion.

  rub: “There’s the rub” means “there’s the catch,” and it also means “there’s the essence”—the meanings can be close but not identical. Shakespeare implies both senses but paints a concrete picture that would have been familiar to his audience. “Rub” is the sportsman’s name for an obstacle that, in the game of bowls, diverts a ball from its true course. Shakespeare was fond of the sport. He played not on lanes but on lawns, where obstacles were common.

  sorites: From the Greek soros, meaning “a heap.” In logic, a series of premises followed by a conclusion, arranged so that the predicate of the first premise is the subject of the next, and so forth, the conclusion uniting the subject of the first with the predicate of the last in a series of syllogisms.

  sound argument: When an argument is valid and its premises are all true, then the argument is sound. When an argument is valid but at least one premise is false, the argument is unsound. The ideal argument is a sound argument, as that is most likely to have a conclusion that matches reality.

  special pleading: To use an argument when it supports our preconceptions and reject it in another context when it fails to do so.

  statement: A sentence that makes a definite claim. For instance, “Socrates is bald” claims that Socrates exists and that he is bald. The statement “Socrates is bald and Socrates is wise” makes one claim (aside from the existential claim) that encompasses both bald and wise.

  subaltern: Something ranked below or inferior in some way, usually in status, quantity, or both. “Some S are P” is a subaltern categorical particular statement whose truth claim follows directly from the universal categorical affirmative statement “All S are P,” with “Some S are P” ranked below the more universal claim because it encompasses less.

  p. 339 supererogation: More than is required or expected.

  syllogism: An argument or form of reasoning in which two statements or premises (which are usually generalizations) are made and a conclusion is drawn from them. Classical logic has three types of syllogism—categorical, conditional, and disjunctive.

  tautology: A circular argument usually made by repeating the same thing twice. Circular arguments become more plausible (or seem more plausible) and less easy to recognize if developed at length, as in the Coast Guard collision regulation discussed in chapter 3 . A statement that is always true says nothing new and is also a tautology. A sentence S is logically true, and therefore tautological, if, and only if, every row of its truth table assigns it the value T (true).

  truth: What is (as opposed to what is not).

  tu quoque: Latin meaning “you, too.” This fallacy consists in rejecting a criticism of one’s argument or action by accusing one’s critic or others of thinking or acting in a similar way.

  unsound argument: When an argument is valid but at least one premise is false, the argument is unsoun
d.

  valid argument: Any argument that doesn’t violate the rules of logic—that is, not invalid. It is important to note that valid has a highly specific, technical use in academic logic that differs from several colloquial uses, such as “You made a valid point,” where valid means “true,” or at least worthy of consideration; “Her argument is not valid,” where valid means “compelling”; “This coupon is no longer valid,” where valid means “active, applicable, or properly functioning.” In the technical definition as opposed to the colloquial, validity is a property of arguments, a property of an interrelated set of propositions. It is not a property of any one or more of the propositions themselves. Hence, it would be nonsensical to say that a claim, premise, or conclusion is valid in the technical sense. Premises, claims, statements, and conclusions can be true or false, but they cannot be valid, for only their interrelationships can be valid. Logicians consider those interrelationships valid if they are not invalid. The policing of the interrelationships is p. 340 part of the truth-preserving duty of logic as opposed to the truth-discovering duty of science.

  verify: To show to be true.

  verecundiam: From the Latin verecundia, meaning “modesty,” “diffidence,” or “bashfulness.” With the genitive, it means “respect for” or “scruple about.”

  Select Bibliography

  p. 341 This annotated list contains only those books that the author recommends for the general reader. More in-depth reviews by the author can be found on Amazon.com.

  Clear Thinking

  Browne, M. Neil, and Stuart Keeley. Asking the Right Questions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. This guide to critical thinking uses abundant examples and a cross-cultural approach to teach important skills on how and when to ask crucial questions. The focus on evidence-based decision making is directly in line with the reality principle.