Sunday Best: Top 10 Favorite Queen Songs

 Queen is one of the greatest rock bands of all time.  

If you look at the list of hits that have been able to stand the test of time, then you can attest to the power of their song-writing abilities.

Now, I am not a music guy.  I love music, but I do not have a keen, discerning ear.  I cannot speak to all of the complexities that go into composing a good song.  As a result, this list is not the Top 10 Best Queen Songs, but Top 10 Favorite Queen Songs.  

I did a post a few years ago about the best Queen songs in movies.  This was a bit more objective and it fell into my wheelhouse of film.  But ABC television did a lot with Queen music this week, so I thought I would share my favorite songs and why.

10. "One Vision"

A bold ballad that makes you feel like flying (maybe that's because I always associate it with Iron Eagle.

9. "Flash Gordon Theme"

I love this movie so much.  I know it is cheesy, but it has a special place in my heart.  The sound of the music's bass always gets me excited for adventure.  I love the complete commitment that the band has to this song.  When they sing Flash's name it is followed by a scream of ecstasy and then a hyperbolic statement like "He'll save everyone of us."  Not just some of us.  Not just most of us.  Every. One. Of. Us!  And Queen does not play this with any kind of humor, but with zealous devotion.

8.  "We Will Rock You"

I have fond memories of this song as people in school would stomp and chant it.  It always felt like a song where it wasn't just the band singing, but we were part of the song too.

7. "Princes of the Universe"

With Queen you either get the ecstatic highs or crushing despair. This is a song about being on top of the world, feeling like the whole universe was made just for you.  This is a song to sing while speeding down the highway after a victory: "I have no rival!  No man can be my equal!"

6. "Who Wants to Live Forever"

And then we crash into despair with this song.  Filled with melancholy grief and loss, it describes a life that is empty and devoid of any joy.  This is a song to play in a dark room with the blinds closed after a break up.

5. "Bohemian Rhapsody"

I love the way this song had a second life in the 90's thanks to Wayne's World, which is when I discovered it.  There is something incredibly fun about its odd shifts in musical tone throughout.  You feel like you are able to live through the entire emotional gamut by the time you are through.

4. "We Are the Champions"

I love how this song starts off slow.  It begins with a sense of reflection and relief that builds into the realization of victory.  It's a song that acknowledges the long, hard road that we all have to take in order to achieve the things you dream of.  I love how it is a communal song: "WE are the champions, my friends."  It's a song about making it to victory together.  

3. "Don't Stop Me Now."

The more I hear this song, the more it brings me joy.  Yes, the lyrics a bit on the bawdy side, where he sings about being a "sex-machine."  But there is something about once the song takes off it captures the exhilaration of letting yourself go and being in the moment.

2. "Under Pressure."

A friend of mine said that this might be one of the greatest songs ever written, and I don't disagree.  For me, what makes it work is how it builds to those last lyrics.  The music converges as if trying to break through the despair it has created by clinging to hope that love can save.  And I adore how the lyrics say that love dares us to change our way of caring.  Love always calls us to shake loose our complacency and reach out to those on the edge of the night.

1. "'39"

I know this will be an odd choice for many people, as this is not one of Queen's most popular songs.  But it is so odd in their collection.  It is a completely acoustic ballad that tells a complete story about interstellar travel. But rather than getting bogged down in the sci-fi nature of it, the song is a tragedy: the story of love lost to the ravages of time.  That last verse always sticks with me:

"Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away?  Don't you hear me calling you?  All your letters in the sand cannot heal me like your hand.  For my life still ahead, pity me."

Honorable Mentions: Another One Bites the Dust, It's a Kind of Magic, Gimme the Prize, I Want to Break Free, Keep Yourself Alive, Radio Ga-Ga, and Somebody to Love

Thoughts?

Logic Lessons Pt 12 - Kinds of Definitions

Once we have established the rules for definitions, it important to list the kinds of definitions.

1.  Nominal.

     This is a definition of a word rather than the thing that the word designates.  This means that it the definition is in reference to how a word is used rather than what it is.  A nominal definition is something that Webster is interested in when giving the different ways that word "soul" is used in the English language.  But a real definition is what Plato is interested in when asking question in through his dialogues to discover what is the soul's essence.

Nominal definitions are not true or false.  It is simply a matter of their usage.

Of nominal definitions, they are men to convey

a. Conventional Meanings - this refers what is commonly held as the definition, whether or not it is accurate.  The conventional meaning of "education" is schooling by teachers over students.  But the thing itself is not limited to that.

b.  Specialized Meanings - this refers to definitions agreed upon in a discussion.  For example, if you are trying to define human life, you can say, "Let's stipulate that any creature that has reason is human."  And if you and your interlocutor agree, it is a specialized meaning.

c.  Synonym.  - this is the simple word replacement for an equivalent word.

d.  Etymology - understanding the word's origin as definition.  For example "philosophy" is based on two Greek words "phileo" meaning "love" and "sophia" meaning wisdom."  So philosophy is the "love of wisdom."

e. Examples - These are not strictly definitions but they are helpful to get the idea across to someone.  Try defining the color red.  You'll find t"3-hat more often than anything, you point out red things rather than define the thing itself.

2.  Essential

     This should give the genus and specific difference (or property) of the thing being defined.  This is what Socrates always strove for.  He wanted to understand a thing's essence.

When using a genus, you should use the narrowest of genus available.  You could use the genus "shape" or "plane figure" for "triangle."  "Plane figure" is a narrower genus and so it is preferable.

The specific difference tells us how the thing being defined is different than all the other things in the genus.  "3-Sided, enclosed, whose angles equal 180 degrees" is the specific difference.

Together, the genus and specific difference gives us the species.

For example, the species of human is the animal (genus) that is rational (specific difference).  We are like all the other beasts because we share the fact that we are all animals.  But we are different because we are the only ones who have reason.

3.  By Property.
  This is a quality that flows from the essence.  For example, if you said that "Humans are animals that write poetry," you are defining "humans" by a quality that comes only from its essence.  Since the essence of human beings is that we are rational and only those who have reason have language and only those who have language have poetry, therefore human beings are the animals that write poetry."

4.  By Accidents.
   Accidental properties are changeable, non-essential aspects of a thing.  You could define the "clouds" to a child as "the white things in the sky."  But those qualities of "whiteness" and "in-the-skyness" are not essential to a cloud.  Clouds can be different colors.  They can also be be in other locations.  But even though accidents cannot give you an essential definition, if you add enough of them you can convey a clear picture of the subject another person.

5.  By Efficient Cause.
  This is the an explanation of a things origins.  E.g. "AIDS is a disease caused by HIV."

6.  By Final Cause.
  This defining a thing by the purpose for which it is designed.  E.g. "A pen is an instrument for writing."

7. From  Material Cause
  This is defining a thing by its composition.  E.g. "Water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen."

8.  From Effects.
   This is usually done as a catch-all for something that cannot be defined in any other way than the effect it causes.  E.g. a "carcinogen" is defined as "anything the causes cancer."

Logic Lessons pt 11 - Rules for Definitions

At our last session we discussed the nature of definitions.  Now here are the rules.

     Definitions must be:

1. Coextensive with thing defined (neither too narrow nor too broad)
   To define "triangle" as "plane figure" or human as "animal" is problematic because, while true, the definition is too broad.  "Plane figure" could include non-triangles like squares and trapezoids.  "Animal" could include non-humans like orangoutangs, armadillos, and duck-billed platypuses.  
   
   
   But to define "triangle" as "3-sided, enclosed plane figure whose interior angles equal 180 degrees and lines are equal to each other," is also problematic because it excludes triangles whose 3 lines are not equal (e.g. right triangles).  To define "human" as "rational male animals" is too limiting because it excludes women from the definition of human.  
   
   
   Definitions need to be precise so as not to confuse.  The more precise we are in our definitions, the easier time we will have in talking with each other.  
   
   
   This is the hardest of the rules to obey.
   
   
   In fact, I just had a phone call from Rick O., who criticized my inclusion of Clerks: The Animated Series into my top 25 sitcoms of all time.  
   
   
   The thrust of the argument centered around my criteria (i.e. definition) of what makes a great TV sitcom.  He thought my definition was too broad because Clerks had only 6 episodes and was less in total length than most movies.  I said his definition was too narrow, because there were many great shows that only last a short amount of time (Firefly, Freaks and Geeks).  
   
   
   By the end of the discussion, he understood my reasoning a little better.  "Your thinking is consistent," he concluded, "but awful."  The point is that even though we disagreed, we at least understood each other better because we were better able to define more precisely our definitions and articulate how we thought the other violated this first rule.
   
   
   
   
2. Clear, not obscure
   Clarity in definition is important.  If you say that a "quarvat" is "an 8523rd century version of a Gravity Rod," you have a coextensive definition, but unless you are fan of James Robinson's writing, the definition is too obscure to matter.  Clarity requires you to put the commons sense of the definition as plainly as possible and as accessibly as possible.
   
   
3. Literal, not metaphorical
   "Writing a novel is like giving birth."  There is great truth in that statement, but that is a terrible definition of novel writing.  "Lies are a tangled web."  Again, a true aphorism, but it is a bad definition because it uses metaphor.  I know now what writing a novel and lies are like, but I don't, from these definition, know what they are.
   
   
4. Brief, not long
   This may not always be possible.  But you want to give the simplest version of the definition because it will be the easiest to understand and therefore the easiest to either accept of refute.
   
   
5. Positive, not negative (if possible)
   Negative definitions tend to be too broad.  If you say "human" is "any creature that is not rational" becomes problematic because it excludes angels.  
   
   
   The only time to use a negative definition is for something negative.  "Darkness" can only be defined by a negative: "Absence of light."  "Never" = "Not ever."
   
   
6. Not Circular: term defined cannot appear in the definition
   If I were to say that a "quarvat" is a "quarvat-shaped object," you will not have learned anything because you are using the word you are trying to define inside of your definition.  You need to predicate something new about your subject in a definition in order for it to have any meaning.
   
   
   
   
   Next time we will go over kinds of definitions.

Logic Lessons pt 10: Definitions

I know that it has been nearly 2 years since we had our last foray into logic lessons.  To recap you can hit the "logic" tag at the end of this post to see all of the previous posts.

When last we left off, we went over all of the material fallacies.  But having finished that, we move on to definitions.

As I've written before on this blog, defining terms is one of the most crucial and most overlooked aspects of argumentation.  How can I properly refute my opponent's argument if I don't understand what he is talking about?  Or how can I properly defend my own beliefs if I cannot even explain what they are?

Both Democrats and Republicans say that they want to "help" the poor.  But what does "help" mean for them.  If a Republican wants to cut off public assistance, a Democrat would accuse him of not wanting to help the poor because for him "help" means using our governmental resources to give financial aid to the underprivileged.  But if a Democrat wants to expand welfare programs, the Republican will say that the Democrat is not helping the poor because by "help" the Republican means self-sufficiency that can come only when not depending on the government.

In both of the above cases, they wanted to "help."  But they had radically different definitions.  If they could agree on terms, the conflict would be less.

Of course there are those like Mao and Stalin who believed that words were not means to knowledge, understanding, and truth, but weapons to manipulate others.  If we do not want believe that, then we must dedicate ourselves to using them as tools of wisdom.

Definitions are key to helping us talk with each other.  Agreeing on terms help us to occupy the same mental space with another so that we can be more sure that we are talking about the same subject.

NATURE OF A DEFINITION

A definition, very simply, tells us what a thing is.  This is necessary for the 1^st act of the mind: understanding.  This is what our minds do as they develop as children.  We point to things and we want people to tell us what they are.  A child points to a basketball and we say "ball."  The child points to a soccer ball and says "Ball?"  and we say "Yes."  The child then points to a dog and says "Ball?"  And we point and say "No. 'dog.'"

Slowly, we learn that some things are different than other things and other things are the same.  That is the same process we go through as adults, just more in depth.

Definitions clear up ambiguity.  Ideally we want an  “essential definition” which is an ideal definition that tells a thing’s essence by giving its genus and specific difference. It is clear and distinct.

At the very least, a definition must distinguish the object from other things.

I remember at one of our philosophy club debates, we were trying to figure out "What is art?"  One student smiled and declared triumphantly, "Art is… a WORD!"

And while that is true, it doesn't tell us anything.  I still am no closer to having the thing object in my mind.

If you said that "Red is… a COLOR!"  it would help, but I still don't yet have the object in mind.  If you said it was the color of the Flash's costume or Darth Vader's lightsaber or Jessica Rabbit's dress, then I am much closer.

At our next session, we will discuss the rules for definitions.

Logic Lessons pt 9: Metaphysical Fallacies

This last set of Material Fallacies deal with the aspect of philosophy known as Metaphysics.  It is important to know these because if you are wrong about the nature of the universe, you will be wrong about the understanding of that universe.

1. “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness” -confuse abstract with concrete
    e.g. “I love humanity, but I hate people.”  This is where you treat an abstract concept (like humanity) as more concrete than the substantial thing from which you made the abstraction (like actual people).  This is problematic when we lose site of where we need to place our priorities.  It reminds me of those who want to "save the planet" in the abstract sense but are willing to do it at the expense of the well-being of actual people.
   
   
2. Fallacy of Accident = confusing accidents with essentials 
   This is when the non-essential things are confused with essential things.  The most obvious example of this is racism, where a person's race (a non-essential property of a person) is thought to be an essential aspect of their personhood.
   
   
3. Confusing Quantity with Quality (and vice versa): includes “qualification of quantity” = claims numbers have personalities, moral values, mystical significance.
   This is what happens when we put the wrong value on numbers.  If we say that most 90% of American Catholics disobey the Church's teaching on contraception, that number tells us nothing more than 90% of American Catholics disobey the Church's teaching on contraception.  The number does not tell us whether or not the position is morally good or bad.  
   
   
4. Reductionism: usually reducing from form to matter
   This is where a thing is only looked at and understood in its material parts.  For example,  “Mind is nothing but brain."  This reduces the complexity of the human soul to the firing of electrons.  Or like saying that the works Shakespeare are just "ink blots on paper."
   
   
5. Confusing Logical, Causal, and Psychological Causes
   More on this one in a later post
   
   
6. The Existential Fallacy = confusing essence and existence
   The most famous example of this is  St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument.  In it, he said that God is the greatest conceivable being.  That means that I could not possibly conceive of a being greater.  Anselm then asks if it is greater to exist in reality or only the mind.  The answer, of course, is that it is greater to exist in reality.  So if God only existed in the mind, He could not be the greatest conceivable of being because I could imagine a greater being (one who existed in reality).  So God must also exist in reality.  The problem with this argument is that he confuses the distinction that Thomas Aquinas makes between a thing's essence (its definition) and it's existence (whether it exists in reality or just the mind)
   
   
7. Confusing Natural with the Common:
   We see this when we say things like "Teenagers are going to have sex no matter what we say."
   Is it common for teens to experiment with sex?  Yes.  But does that mean that it is in their nature?  No.
    -Natural is inherent and unchanging.  If the above statement was a statement of nature, then no teen could be chaste.  But that is obviously not true.
    -Common is accidental and changeable.  The presence or lack of chastity has no bearing on that which is natural to teens because it is something changeable.

Logic Lessons pt 8: Procedural Fallacies

Procedural Fallacies are fallacies that violate basic logical justice. They are valid in form, but they are used incorrectly.


1. Refuting an Argument by Refuting its Conclusion.
   This is a fallacy when someone presents you with an argument and instead of refuting it, you create a second argument to compete with the first argument.
   For example, I say that if there there is no God who is Existence Itself then nothing in this world could exist. But we do exist, therefore God exists. You then respond by saying, if God, who is Goodness Itself, Power Itself, and Love Itself existed then we His creatures would all be perfectly happy. But we are not, so God does not exist.
   Notice that the second argument has a contradictory conclusion to the first. But that does not mean that the first argument has been refuted. There are only 3 ways to refute an argument:
   a. it has an ambiguous term
   b. one of the premises is untrue
   c. the logic is invalid.
   Adding a contradicting argument does not do any of the above 3.


2. Assuming that Refuting an Argument Refutes the Conclusion:
   There may be a bad argument for a true conclusion. For example:
   Grass is made of hair.
   Hair is Green
   Therefore Grass is green
   Notice that both of the premises are untrue, which means that the argument is invalid. But the conclusion is still true.


3. Ignoring the Argument.
   This is where you argue about something else irrelevant. Peter Kreeft points out that Karl Marx does this in his Communist Manifesto. Marx says “As for the charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.”
   Thus he seeks simply to dismiss the objections rather than answer them.
   
   
   
   
4. Substituting Explanations for Proofs.
   A proof is when you show your conclusion must be true and its contradictory cannot be true. An explanation is when you show how something could possibly be true. A common criticism of Christian believers is that we only believe because we are afraid of death. I've had a few students who were unnerved by this because they were afraid of death and thus they questioned their motives for believing. But believe something out of fear does not prove one way or another if it is true. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that every Christian believes out of fear. How does that disprove Christ getting up and walking out of the tomb?


5. Answering Another Argument than the one Given
   I was recently trying to have an online debate with someone, but they continually did this. They kept criticizing the Church as bad but had no definition for the good, other than a tautology “e.g. 'Good' is postitive results and 'positive results' are results that are positive.” . I pointed out


a. To criticize something as bad one must know what “bad” is.

b. To know what “bad” is one must know what “good” is.

c.His definition of “good” is a tautology.
d. Tautologies give you no new information. They are empty, contentless

e. Empty, contentless statements are nonsense.

f. Therefore, the critiques from this person are nonsense


The response was to say that he knew what bad was because the Church covered up priests molesting children and that was bad, so he knew what bad was.


But notice my point was not that the Church is not bad. My point was that he had no reference for good or bad so no one could understand his argument.


6. Shifting the Burden of Proof:
   In an argument, the burden of proof means that the person who has it must prove their point decisively in order to win. The one who does not have the burden of proof need not prove their point, only show that the the one with the burden did not prove theirs. In court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant does not need to prove their innocence or even provide a defense. All they need to do is show that the prosecution did not prove their case. In an argument, ground rules should be set as to who has burden of proof and who does not. A good rule of thumb should be to put the burden of proof on the one who wants the most radical change, thus forcing them to come up with a compelling argument for the change. For example, those who are in favor of “gay marriage” should have the burden of proof to come up with a compelling reason why we should radically alter the foundational unit of the family. Also those who are anti-abortion should have burden of proof to do a radical overhall of the law to outlaw something which is currently legal.


7. Winning the Argument by Losing the Arguer (or vice-versa):
   I hate when people make emotional appeals devoid of logic. We should never abdicate our reason because that makes us beasts. We are not less than logic. But we are more than logic. This fallacy occurs when we ignore our personality context and substitute personality for argument. In class, I always try and appeal to all sides of the person. I can be completely correct in refuting a student's argument, but if I do it in a way that does not open the door a deeper meeting with Christ, then I may have destroyed his argument, but also an avenue to finding God.

Logic Lessons pt 7: Fallacies of Induction

Induction is when you take several instances of something to form a general conclusion. You can never get certainty from induction, but that is not the problem. The following are times where induction is improperly used.

1. Hasty Generalization = going from specific example to general principle too quickly. For example, when I was a child, my mom brought me to the old Cleveland Stadium to watch an Indians game. We were in the nosebleeds and I was bored. Then she brought us again. And after watching the pitcher throw to first base for half-an-hour, I concluded that I baseball was a boring sport. Now, it may very well be, but only 2 games may be too soon to make that conclusion.
2. Post Hoc = (post hoc ergo propter hoc) “After that, therefore caused that.” The classic example is Chanticleer the rooster who crows and then the sun comes up. He thinks that because it follow his actions that it is because of his crowing that the sun rises. This is the source of all of our superstition. I never bowl a strike. But then one day I did when I wore mismatched socks. So from now on I wear my “lucky” mismatched socks. But because something follows another thing, it does not mean that it caused the thing.
3. Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: “if x were true (which it isn’t) then y would be true.” The problem with this is that it forces you to assume something to be true that is not. For example: “If Al Gore was elected we would never have invaded Iraq.” Or “If McCain was elected, the economy would be better.” Now, both examples are possibly true. But the “if” premise of the statement is NOT true. Because it is not true, it is impossible to verify the conclusion. We have do not know what an Al Gore presidency would have been like because that is an historical possibility that is impossible to check.
4. False Analogy = assumes analogies prove something. Now it is important to note that analogies don’t actually prove anything. CS Lewis is one of the best modern Christian writers because of his ability to use an analogy effectively. But even he would acknowledge that an analogy is not an argument. It doesn't prove that a thing is true, but explains how it could be true. The fallacy occurs when using false analogies, which consist of
   a. Using a false (inappropriate) analogy. This would be making an analogous comparison to something that does not share any similar traits. For example, “Giving birth is like eating spaghetti” The two activities have nothing in common, as opposed to saying something like “Giving birth is like writing a book.” Now in both situations, something is made that hasn't been before and it requires effort. It may be a poor analogy, but it is not a false analogy.
   b. using an analogy falsely. Assuming if some things are similar in one way, they will be similar in all ways. St. Patrick used the Shamrock as an analogy to the Trinity (“3 leaves but one leaf”). But it would be wrong (using a quote from “Nuns on the Run) to say “God is like the Trinity... short, green, and split 3-ways.”
5. Argument from Silence = drawing conclusions from silence on a subject. When the Da Vinci Code was popular, some of my students would ask if Jesus was married. I said that there is no evidence for it. They respond, “That doesn't mean he wasn't.” But that doesn't help PROVE the proposition that Jesus was married. I respond, “I am going to assume that you are a serial killer because there is no evidence to say that you aren't.”
6. Selective Evidence = referring only to evidence that supports you and ignoring evidence that refutes you. This is something you see a lot in political ads. A report from the Congressional Budget Office will come out and the candidates will ignore whatever disagrees with their position and highlight what agrees with them.
7. Slanting the Question: You find this a lot with polling. Take these 2 questions about the same topic: “Do you support a woman's right to choose?” and “Do you support an unborn child's right to live?” Both questions are asking “Should abortion be legal?” But depending on how it is asked, it leads the answerer to a conclusion.     

Logic Lessons pt 6: Fallacies of Argumentation

Fallacies of Argumentation

These are fallacies that are very similar to something we shall look at later: formal fallacies

In these, there is a problem inherent in the truth of the argument.

1. Non sequitur = “it does not follow.” Conclusion does not follow from premises and evidence. This is inside any invalid argument but it is a material fallacy. Note the following example:
   a. The sky is gray
   b. I am angry
   c. Therefore, the sky is making me angry.
   The above example is a Non sequitur, because premise a and b are completely unrelated and you cannot draw a valid conclusion from it. It is different that a formal fallacy, like so:
   a. Sky is Blue
   b. Sea is Blue
   c. Therefore Sky is Sea

Here, the two premises are related, but the conclusion is incorrect because of some problem with the logical form (more on this later).

Non-sequiturs are often used when people are need to make an emotionally charged argument with little data. Putting the 2 concepts in proximity gives the illusion of a conclusion. I remember I was talking with someone who asked my what I thought about the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI. I said I loved him and thought he was great. This person was disgusted and responded, “What about AIDS?” I was a little taken aback and said, “Um... I think it's bad.”

The argument as presented informally to me by this person was:

a. AIDS is bad

b. Pope got elected

c. Therefore, Pope wants to spread AIDS.

(to be fair, her argument was a little more sophisticated than that if you factor in 2 hidden assumptions. But as it was presented, this was the argument). Notice how similar a non-sequitur can be to a fallacy of diversion. The main problem for a non-sequitur is that it is missing something called a “middle term.” (more on this later)

2. Ignoratio elenchi = “ignorance of the claim” or “irrelevant conclusion.” This is giving reasons that prove a different conclusion than what you claim. For example, imagine this dialogue (example taken from Dr. Peter Kreeft):
   Neville Chamberlin: “Peace is preferable to war. Do you agree?”
   British People: “Yes.”
   Neville Chamberlin: “Therefore let us appease Hitler, because not doing so would lead to war.”)

3. Begging the Question = assuming what you set out to prove. In the movie Legal Eagles, a defense attorney played by Robert Redford seems to snap in court and tells the jury to convict his client. When A juror says that she deserves a fair trial, Redford says, “Okay, we'll give her a fair trial. And then convict her.” Obviously, she cannot have a fair trial if the conclusion is set. One of the most important things Socrates taught us was to follow an argument where it goes and not to try to force a conclusion that did not follow the evidence.

4. Complex Question–asking a question which cannot be answered without begging another question. For example, there is the classic: “Yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?” Of course a yes answer implies that you did beat your wife at some point. A no answer means that you still are beating her. The question that should have been asked first is: “Have you ever beaten your wife?” Another example is the question, “Who made God?” There is a hidden assumption here that everything that exists has a beginning.

5. Arguing in a Circle = using a conclusion to justify a premise after using the premise to justify the conclusion. Unfortunately these arguments are often used when talking about religion. A dialogue may go like this:
   Unbeliever: How do you know God exists?
   Believer: The Bible says so.
   Unbeliever: Why do you believe the Bible is telling the truth?
   Believer: Because God wrote it.

This also happens from the other side of the belief spectrum

Unbeliever: There are no miracles

Believer: But people witnessed them.

Unbeliever: Those people are liars

Believer: Why?

Unbeliever: Because there are no miracles.

6. Contradictory Premises: When there is an obvious contradiction in your statement. (e.g.“I will not tolerate intolerance.”
7. False Assumption: This is the basis of all jokes. Once again to take an example from Peter Kreeft:
   A mailman on his daily round was confronted by a large, ferocious dog in front of a house. An old man sat on the front porch.

"Hey," yelled the mailman, "Does your dog bite?"

"No, he doesn't." said the old man.

The mailman proceeded to move toward the house, and the dog immediately bit him on the leg! After fighting the dog off with his mailbag, the mailman proceeded to the house, keeping a watchful eye on the dog. After straightening his mailbag, he handed the old man his mail.

"I thought you said your dog doesn't bite!" he sneered at the old man as he pulled up his pants leg, revealing a large bite mark.

"That's right. He doesn't bite." said the old man calmly.... "That's not my dog!"

Logic Lessons pt 5: Fallacies of Oversimplification

Fallacies of Oversimplification

While brevity is the soul of wit, sometimes things are cannot be reduced to simple sound bites. True that we can overcomplicate things, but one of there are 7 material fallacies that OVERsimplify.

1. Dicto Simpliciter = applying general principles to a specific case while ignoring the special circumstances.
   This applies all general principles while not taking into account how a thing can be used in a specific way. For example, what would you die without first: water or diamonds? The answer is obviously water. You can go your entire life without ever even seeing a diamond. But if you make this statement: “Water is more important for life than diamonds, so I’ll swap you diamonds for my water,” would be foolish in our society because in the case modern society, we can use diamonds for buying many life needs. Or take Homer:
   
   
   
   
2. Special Case = applying what is true in a special case to a general principle.
   This is the exact opposite of the first fallacy. For example, the Church does allow for artificial contraception for rape victims. Some then take this exception and uses it to try to disprove the rule. But this is refuted by the “exception that proves (pre-supposes) the rule.” By noting that it is an exception, it presuposes the specialness of the case. It would also be like saying that “since everyone who argues on the internet is an idiot, man is irrational.”

3. Composition = over generalizing from the part to the whole
   This is why television shows put so much energy into the pilot episode to suck you in. The assumption being that the 1^st episode was good, so the rest must be good. I made this mistake with Glee

4. Division = apply what is true of the whole to the truth of the parts
   To take the television analogy again, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a great show. But I know someone who hated it because they happened to see only one episode, and it was one of the worst that they ever made (the one with the giant mantis... ugh). But a sample of one part does not tell you the overall quality of the whole.

5. Black and White Fallacy = Not allowing for gradations between extreme.
   This allows for no gray area when there is gray area to be had. For example, how would you answer the question: are you good or bad? I think most of us would be reluctant to call ourselves good, because we know that we are sinners. But we also have a reluctance to call ourselves bad because we sometimes do good things and desire to be decent people. The Black and White fallacy does not allow for this complexity. Another example would be: are you fat or skinny? You can not be skinny but also not fat but somewhere on the continuum without being either extreme.

6. Quoting Out of Context – contexts that can be ignored are:
   a. Literary – ignore what is stated before and after a quote. For example the Bible says “there is no God.” (Ps 14:1) Of course that quote leaves out the six words that precede this statement: “The fool says in his heart...”
   b. Real – lived situation surrounding the statement. Have you ever listened to two guy friends talk to each other. While playing Halo, my friends and I will hurl the most vulgar insults we can imagine at each other as hammer in each other's skulls. But that's how guys talk. If we ignore the context in which these words are said, we might think that these guys are filled with hate for each other.
   
   
   
   
7. Stereotyping = prejudiced generalization that is in error. By definition, all stereotypes are are wrong.

Logic Lessons pt 4

Fallacies of Diversion

The next set of Material Fallacies are called Fallacies of Diversion. These are ways of diverting attention away from the argument itself. Many people, when they are losing an argument, avoid the substance of the argument.

1. Ad hominem = attacking the person instead of the issues at hand.
   
   
   
   
   There are several different type of Ad hominem attacks
   
   
   a. “Poisoning the well” = direct attack on trustworthiness to avoid arguing facts. Usually involves slanting. Who here hasn't heard this growing up: “You're just a kid, you don't know what you're talking about?”
   
   
   b. “Tu quoque” = “you too.” This is attacking the critic with the same thing the critic accuses you of doing. An example of this would be: “How can you tell me to turn away from sin, when you too are a sinner.” Or a teen says to a parent “You drank when you were in high school, so how can you tell me I can't?”
   
   
   c. “Genetic Fallacy” = refuting an idea by showing some suspicious psychological origin of it. As I mentioned in my post on death, non-believers sometimes say that belief in God is based on our fear of death. But this substitutes a logical reason with personal motive. If you said to me, “You don't want to believe that your wife is cheating on you,” I would agree, but it has no bearing on whether or not she is (incedentally, just to protect her honor, let me clarify that she is not).

2. Ad verecundian = “appeal to reverence”
   
   
   This is when there is an illegitimate appeal to authority or an appeal to illegitimate authority. Now, not all appeals to to authority are bad. Sometimes authority is necessary, because we can't be experts on everything. I am not an expert in particle physics and quantum mechanics, so I rely on others. But arguments from authority are the weakest of all arguments, because we have not worked through all the data ourselves, but we are one step removed from the logic.
   Appeals to authority are fallacious when:
   
   
   a. they are irrelevant: e.g. movie stars on issues of science
    b. unreliable: e.g. tabloids who have questionable sources
    c. unnecessary: when argument from reason is clear. I don't need a PhD in math to tell me that if a=b and b=c then a=c
   d. dogmatic: claimed with certainty, not probability. Whenever I says “Experts say...” I have to acknowledge that they could be wrong.
   e. uncritical: when there is no good reason to trust authority. I remember when a student told me that removal of priestly celibacy would lead to less pedophilia. When I pointed out that married men, by a larger percentage, have more pedophiles than celibate priests, her response was: “Well, my mom agrees with me.”

3. Ad baculum = appeal to force or fear instead of reason. 
   
   
    Also includes appeal to desire. If your boss says that they will fire you if you agree with them or promote you if you agree, this would be an example of this.

4. Ad misericordiam = appeal to pity in substitute for an argument.
   
   
    I was moderating a debate on euthanasia. One of the debaters said, “I've had a family member who died in great pain. You won't think euthanasia is wrong if you have to live through the same situation.” While experiential knowledge is important, this is a fallacy because it dodges the logical arguments presented by the opponent.

5. Ad ignominiam = appeal to shame in substitute for argument. 
   
   
    If you've ever had someone say to you, “People will laugh at you if you do X,” then this would be a fallacy. Now, if the substance of the argument is what people will or will not laugh at, then this is not a fallacy. But if you said to me, “You shouldn't stand at a prayer vigil outside abortion clinics because people will laugh at you,” this would not address the substance of if my actions are right or wrong.
   As clarification on the difference between shame and guilt. Shame is social. It is relative to society. Guilt is personal. It is based on our own beliefs of moral rightness. Often the two things overlap. Once when I was a kid, as a joke, slapped my dad on the back of the head for saying something I thought was stupid. His faced turned ashen and yelled at me in front of everyone. I still feel guilt about that because it was a horribly disrespectful thing to do to my father, and I know that it was wrong. But I also felt shame, because I knew other people who saw would think I was a bad person. A good example of this distinction is being naked. When we are alone in the shower naked, we don't feel any guilt. But if suddenly the walls to the bathroom fell away and the whole neighborhood saw us, we would feel shame.
   
   
6. Ad populum = believing or doing something because it is popular. Politicians do this all the time. 
   
   
    There are 2 types
   a. Appeal to the Masses. This is where we turn to the idea of what normal people think and how they behave. Notice this has been used by citing polls regarding the acceptance of contraceptives in modern society and how that impacts the morality of the contraception mandate in Obamacare.      b. “Snob Appeal.” This happens whenever we disregard an argument because it comes from a place we consider inferior.

7. Ad ignoratiam = appeal to ignorance. This is arguing an idea must be true because we do not know that it is not. This is one that I heard a lot when The DaVinci Code was popular: “I believe Jesus married Mary Magdalene because there is no evidence that says that he did not.” This would be like me saying: “I believe that you are a serial killer because there is no evidence to say that you are not.”

Logic Lessons pt 3

 MATERIAL FALLACIES

Material Fallacies are mistakes in understanding or use of terms. Because these fallacies are about terms, they are errors in 1^st act of the mind.

Identifying these fallacies can be incredibly helpful when debating or even reading. Very often someone will make an argument that feels convincing but if we recognize that they are fallacies, we can make sure that we are not taken in by smart sounding words. We can be pledged to the Common Master: Reason.

There are actually 49 Material Fallacies. We will divide them into 7 Categories, with 7 fallacies in each.

1. Fallacies of Language

1. Equivocation = the same term is sued in more than 1 way in an argument.
   (e.g. “pen” = ink writing instrument; “pen” = pig enclosure).
   
   
   This can lead to a lot of problems. An example of how this can be used incorrectly in a logical syllogism:
   -swearing in public is wrong
   -swearing an oath is done in public (the court)
   -therefore, swearing an oath is wrong.
   The solution to this is to
   a. identify term or phrase with shifting meaning. Then
   b. identify the different meanings with different words.

So you can see that the word “swearing” is ambiguous. So replace the words to clarify

-cursing in public is wrong

-swearing an oath is done in public (the court)

-therefore, swearing an oath is wrong.

You can see now that the conclusion does not follow.

2. Amphiboly = ambiguous syntax (word order or grammatical structure).
   
   
   Takes this example:
   “I was thirsty when I was teaching basic party etiquette I taught them drinking.”

Now, was the speaker in that sentence teaching them while drinking or was he teaching them how to drink at parties? To clarify the meaning the person should clarify the syntax.

“While drinking water I taught them.”

3. Accent = ambiguity from
   -voice inflection
   -ironic or sarcastic tone
   -facial expression
   -innuendo
   The following examples are taken from Peter Kreeft's book on Socratic Logic:
   A politician is asked if he is going to run for President. He answers: “I do not choose to run at this time.” But depending on how it was said, especially when highlighting a particular word, the meaning can change.
   a. “I do not choose to run at this time.” (but perhaps he will.)
   b. “I do not choose to run at this time.” (I choose not to run)
   c. “I do not choose to run at this time.” (But I can be forced)
   d. “I do not choose to run at this time.” (But I can be drafted)
   e. “I do not choose to run at this time.” (But I may tomorrow)

This is one of the reasons reading emails and texts is so frustrating, because we cannot pick up on the context cues for the word without the help of CAPS or emoticons ;)

The solution is to follow up with a clarifying remark like the ones the parentheses above

4. Slanting = describing a thing as good or bad without proving it.
   This is something that we see in politics all the time. If a leader changes his mind on an issue, his supporters use the word “flexible” while his opponents say “fickle.” Notice that the action is the same, but the word choice is slanted towards a particular feeling. We can see this in the use of propaganda If I am for legalized abortion I say I am pro-choice. If I am against legalized abortion, I say I am pro-life. Just look at recently, the divide between those who use the terms “illegal alien” and “undocumented American.”

The solution is to try as best as possible to find a neutral term. This may not always be possible.

4. Slogans
   
   
   These are not fallacies in and of themselves, but they can become fallacies if they are used in place of an argument.
   Teacher: “You shouldn't chew gum in class.”
   Student: “Hey, rules were made to be broken.”
   Teacher: “What does that mean?”
   Student: (blank stare) “I don't know.
   The solution is to take apart the slogan and figure out what is actually being said to test its truth.
   “You can't hug children with nuclear arms,” was a popular slogan during the Cold War. It means: “We need to care and nurture our children. But the nuclear arms race is draining our country's resources so that we cannot provide the care our children need and in the process we are teaching them violence.” Now, I leave it to you to judge the validity of this, but once it has been “de-sloganized” we can debate it.
   
   
   
   
5. Hyperbole = exaggeration.
   
   
   For example, “My dad will kill me if he finds out I took the car without permission.”
   This is a common exaggeration for this type of offense (goodness knows it was true in my house), but I was never truly in danger for my life (at least I don't think so). The solution is to replace the exaggerated word with one that is more accurate:
   “My dad will yell at me, ground me, and force me to paint the garage if he finds out I took the car without permission.”

7. “Straw Man” = refuting an unfairly weak, stupid or ridiculous version of opponent’s idea.
    
   An example of this would be like saying “Catholic beliefs are wrong because the Gospels differ on the day Jesus gets crucified, so not everything in the Bible is true.”

This is a Straw Man argument because it oversimplifies the Church's teaching and relationship to Scripture to make us sound much more like some fundamentalists.

The solution is to state your opponent’s position in your own words to you opponent’s satisfaction. This is what Socrates did all the time. In the Euthyphro, he asked the title character to define piety. After Euthyphro did, Socrates restated the definition in his own words until he said it in a way that satisfied Euthyphro. It was only after this that Socrates began to attack the definition.

If someone says that they are an atheist, ask them what they mean by “atheism.” What they have in mind may be something like agnosticism (“I don't know if God exists”) rather than materialism (“Only the physical world exists.”) Only by truly understanding your opponent's position, and not dismissing or demonizing it, can you truly refute it. Or if it is true, have your own mind changed.

Next time we will discuss the fallacies of diversion.

Logic Lessons pt 2: Terms

I remember in class one day I was teaching what the Church says about "gay marriage."  One of my students got very indignant and said, "This is stupid.  Love is love!" 

To which I responded: "'Love is love?'  You don't believe that.  And I can prove it to you."

I then said 4 declarative sentences:

I love ice cream.
I love God
I love my wife.
I love my mom.

But I do not love ice cream the way I love God.  And I sure hope nobody loves their mother they way they love their wife. 

You could make the argument that she was talking only about romantic love (i.e. eros).  And that what she was saying is that eros is eros and all romantic relationships should be equal.  The problem is that I am not sure that she was making that argument because I didn't understand her use of the term.

This is why understanding terms is so important.  Especially in something as hotly contested as "gay marriage,' it is important for us to know what the other person is talking about before we go about trying to argue it.

Terms come from concepts.  These are universal ideas that are abstract and unchanging.  When we experience green grass as babies, we experience them together as one thing: "greengrass."  But as we begin to understand, we separate the two concepts in our head so that we can think about "greenness" and "grassness."

From the concept we get the term, which is the most basic unit of meaning.  It usually focuses on comprehension or its extension.  Comprehension is its meaning.  For example, the mean of "books" is "paper bound together at a spine with written words or illustrations."  Extension is in reference to the number in existence.  Books, here, would be "the billions of paper bound together at a spine with written words or illustrations that exist on the planet."  Usually the greater the comprehension, the less the extension and vice versa.  In other words, the more exact definition, the fewer number of objects, whereas the broader definition will have a wider number of objects in the subject.  For example, "Harry Potter Books" refer to all books about the character Harry Potter, to which there are dozens.  But if I were to specify the comprehension to mean only Harry Potter books written by JK Rowling, the number of books reduces to 7.

Words are simply terms put into human language.  Just like John, Juan, and Ivan are all the same name of a person in different languages, words like "love," "amor," and "caritas" are all different words about the same term.  And because language is a fluid thing unless it is dead, we have to constantly make sure our words are speaking about the same term.  This is why it is important to always define a term.

A good term should not be ambiguous, that is have more than one meaning.  "That is a cool house to be in for summer."  Does cool refer to temperature or does it refer to its level of awesomeness?  It should also be clear so that people can understand it.  If I use the term "quarvat" without any specific reference, our argument is at an impasse, because you probably do not know what a quarvat is.  Terms should also be specific, and not vague.  Senior year of high school I was studying over a friends house who had a foreign exchange student from France living there.  The French girl looked at one of my friends and out of nowhere said, "You know, you are very fat."  Not only was everyone appalled by her statement, but also flummoxed because she wasn't overweight in our eyes.  But that is the problem with the word "fat."  It is clear what is meant (i.e. "overweight"), but it is not exact.  What the French girl considered fat and what we considered fat were two radically different things, even though we clearly understood what "fat" meant.

In order to have a definition, you have to have predicables.  These are terms in a proposition that are in the predicate that are in reference to a subject.  The predicate has to give you new information in order to be a meaningful definition.  "A quarvat is a quarvat-shaped object" is a terrible definition because it gives me no new information from the predicate to apply to the subject.  When I ask my students to tell me what justice is, sometimes they will say, "When something is just."  But I learn nothing from that definition.  The give me the same thing in predicate as in the subject.  These are called tautologies.

There are 5 predicables.

1. Species – state of the whole essence of a subject (e.g. “Man is a rational animal” “Triangle is a 3 sided plane figure”)

2. Genus – states the generic or common aspect of the subject (e.g. “Man is a rational animal” “Triangle is a 3 sided plane figure”)

3. Specific Difference – states the specific of proper aspect of the subject (e.g. “Man is a rational animal” “Triangle is a 3 sided plane figure”)

4. Property – any characteristic that is not the essence itself, but flows from or is caused by the essence (e.g. “Man is able to speak” “Man is Mortal” “Triangles have 3 interior angles equal to 2 right angles”)

5. Accident – any characteristic that is not essential to the subject. (e.g. “The man is bald.” “The Triangle is equilateral”). Refers to all categories except the substance

Also, people cannot be predicables.  "Batman is Bruce Wayne" or "Obama is the president" are actually tautologies.

When we make mistakes in our understanding (the first act of the mind) we can fall into all kinds of fallacies.  That will be our subject for next time.

Logic Lesson pt 1

I've decided to add another regular feature:  Logic Lessons.

As a teacher, I have found that this skill is sorely lacking in many.  In young people, this is understandable, and it is the job of their teachers to show them.  But I think we have moved away from a systematic explanation of logic.  One of the problems is that many people do not see the consequences of their thoughts.  I had a dialogue in class once that went like this:

Me: Ash Wednesday is tomorrow, so that means that some of us will fast.
Student: (under her breath) That's stupid.
Me:  So fasting is foolish?
Student:  Yeah.
Me: So someone who told you to do something foolish, like fasting, would be a fool.
Student:  Yeah.
Me: So Jesus was a fool?
Student:  THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID.
Me:  But if Jesus told us to fast, and someone who tells you to fast is a fool, then you called Jesus a fool.
Student:  But I didn't!
Me:  Yes, you did.  By logic.

The mighty Dr. Peter Kreeft has written extensively on this subject and I would recommend anything that he writes.

To understand the consequences of our positions can be a very eye-opening process.

To understand logic, we have to remember that the mind performs 3 main acts:

1. UNDERSTANDING: simple apprehension.  This is what a baby does when it learns what a thing is.  The baby points to a ball and says "ball."  Understanding is about having the a concept in mind.  This act is primarily concerned with defining terms.
2. JUDGING what is true.  Not all ideas can be true.  Some are false.  Judging is the act that determines whether a statement is true or false.   This act is primarily concerned with propositions
3. REASONING:  taking 2 or more propositions and finding an new conclusion.  This act is primarily concerned with arguments.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Now, there are 2 kinds of logic

Inductive Logic starts with examples and draws a general conclusion.

 E.g.) “Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are mortal” “THEREFORE Men are mortal. 

This method an only yield probability, not certainty.  Pointing to several examples is like sampling in a poll.  The larger the sample, the greater the probability, but it cannot be certain unless every single member of the group is in the sample.

Deductive Logic starts with General Principles and draws specific conclusions.

E.g.) “Men are Mortal” “Socrates is a Man” “THERFORE Socrates is Mortal”

Deductive logic can yield certainty if:

a. All terms are clear.   A term = Subject or a predicate.  It is either clear or unclear

b. All premises are true.  A Proposition (or a premise)  = Declarative Sentence.  It is either true or false

c. The argument is logically valid.  An Argument = a logical move from premises to conclusion.  It is either valid or invalid

To disagree with a deductively logical argument, it must have at least one of the following:

1. An ambiguous term

2. A false premise

3. A logical fallacy

If it does not have any of these, then the conclusion must be true.

Next time we will focus on the different types of terms.   I am convinced that the majority of our major arguments come from a misunderstanding of the subject.  That is why whenever I begin a debate, I ask the participants to define their terms.  You have no idea how much of a headache that saves in the long run.  More on this later.