Q&D Critical Thinking 2: Most of what we think is not really valid

(Yes, I know, not a great photo but this isn't about photo editing so moving on.)

Arguments, making cases for why something is or is not, dare I say, true. While we think we are arguing about truths of fact, a lot of what we argue about is definition rather than fact. Such arguments are called verbal arguments, rather than what we THINK we're doing which would be factual arguments. This tends to be the case even in academics, perhaps particularly so in philosophy. I'm mentioning this because it may be the case that some of you have heard of the ideas I'm going to espouse in slightly different terms. Let's not get hung up on that, ok?

Example: Back in the day, a scholar was once excoriated for asserting that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. This is a good example of an verbal argument. The facts are that both terrorists and freedom fights 1) align behind a cause, 2) use tactics such as violence and fear, 3) kill people, and so on. The facts are the same; the perception of the value of the facts (meaning which side you're on) determines whether the person is a terrorist or a freedom fighter.

Deduction VS Induction

Many people may think that what I've written above is a valid point. They would be incorrect. It is actually a cogent point. Validity is, or rather should be, reserved for deductive arguments. These are arguments that are black and white, straightforwardly true or false based on their internal logical structure. Deduction is NOT starting from a general concept and getting to a smaller conclusion. Induction is NOT starting from a specific observation and making broad conclusions. Please read and reread and rereread the two sentences before this one. Most of what you read about deduction is, in the words of Donald Trump, WRONG.

Good deductive arguments are called valid. Valid deductive arguments have rock solid internal logic. If A, then B. A, therefore B. Or, all A are B and all B are C; therefore All A are C. Invalid deductive arguments have broken logic. Broken logic is called fallacy. If A, then B. B, therefore A. This is a fallacy because we don't know if A is the only predicate of B; we just know it is one possibility. Therefore we cannot say deductively (read: with certainty) that just because B shows up, A showed up first. This is one only kind of deductive argument but I won't belabor this because the vast, YUGE majority of arguments made by human beings are inductive.

Inductive arguments deal with degrees of probability. Good inductive arguments are called cogent. Their internal logic is: If A then B is likely. A, therefore probably B. You can have fallacious induction as well. If A then B is likely. B therefore A. We simply cannot say with strong probability B by itself indicates A. As you can see this is similar to deduction; the different is probability rather than certainty. Fallacious inductive arguments are called uncogent. Not as common nor as pretty a term as invalid but oh well.

There are a LOT of different types of deductive and inductive arguments, but for quick and dirty purposes the above explanations can suffice.

Info check:

Validity refers to deductive arguments.

Good deductive arguments, or valid arguments, have solid internal logic that does not deal in probabilities.

Most arguments made by people are inductive. Good inductive arguments are called cogent arguments.

Cogent inductive arguments have solid internal logic and deal in probabilities.

Why the mass confusion about all this? I really don't know but I have some ideas, the most pertinent of which may be that the language of deduction is perceived as stronger. If I say something is absolutely the case, or that something is certainly some way, I convey intense confidence in my message. From a marketing perspective this is certainly pragmatic. From an argument perspective, however, it is incredibly brittle. With one counterexample such arguments can break like a board. However arguments that use the language of induction, language of likelihoods and probabilities, stand and remain intact and useful in the face of counterexamples.

Take-aways: 1. Almost nothing human beings have ever said or may ever say is valid in a strict logical sense because we are too limited in our capacity to comprehend reality to deal with anything other than probabilities. Pragmatically speaking. we can and do use these terms loosely but doing so without the occasional reality check lends to this sense we have that we deal in absolute truths when what we really do is deal in perspectives and degrees of probability. 2. Deductive language may seem stronger but it is the weaker of the two as one counterexample breaks the internal logic whereas inductive language bends like the reed.

Action Step: Listen for structure. If someone uses terms such as "absolutely," "certainly," and the like, take a step back from your sense of agreement or disagreement and decipher what message they are implying beyond what they are saying. For example, by using deductive language, are they trying to sell you on their message rather than their actual ability?