(Logic for Numskulls is a weekly discussion for people who want to become a better thinker without having to wade through the hubris (excessive pride) of uber-intellectual posturing. You don’t even need to know the definition of “epistemology” or “philology” in order to join us.)

Are you ready to begin a journey into the strange and dangerous world of logic? Very few people these days dare to venture into what was once seen as a friendly and familiar place. But now common sense and simple reason is more like a dark and dangerous land that is overgrown with weeds and ivy and haunted by ancient spirits from another time. Because people in our modern world are too scared to go there, they have almost completely lost the ability to reason and discuss ideas in both public and private settings. There seems to be no agreed upon rules or expectations when entering into conversations anymore. We fear offending the other and the last thing we want to do is make someone feel unsafe and uncomfortable so we keep our differing opinions hidden deep inside, locking them away so they don’t see the light of day. As a result, people don’t know how to talk anymore. Even giving a faint hint that you may disagree with someone else’s opinion is prime cause to lose a friendship and even be labeled as a hater.

If we cannot disagree with civility, and conflict has become something to avoid at all costs, we as a society, are in deep trouble. For it is working through conflict that makes a collective people better.

So I decided that this new year of 2020 – what a cool year of focus and vision – is the perfect time to open up a discussion on discussing. And in order to discuss we need to first set the boundaries and ground-rules that we can all agree upon. If we don’t agree on how this game of dialogue is played, then chaos is bound to ensue. Let me illustrate…

A few years ago I was playing basketball with a young head-strong student. We were playing the game 21. It was fun for a while until he broke one of the cardinal rules of basketball, “When the other person has the ball you cannot tackle him.” And yet every time I was dribbling he tried to tackle me. 

So I asked him, “Are we playing basketball or football? Because you cannot tackle me when you play basketball.” 

He said, “Basketball, of course.” Okay, now that we had that straight we continued to play. But once again he tried to tackle me. So I asked him very calmly, “Are we playing basketball or football?” He said basketball. So we continued. 

I couldn’t believe it when he tried to tackle me again. So the next time he had the ball I picked him up and slammed him to the ground. He was furious, “What the heck are you doing man? You can’t slam me to the ground.” I looked at him and said, “But I thought we were playing football after you tried tackling me three times.”

When rules are not agreed upon, chaos ensues.

This principle works the same way with communication. If I make a statement and my line of argument is ignored or a person responds only by the feelings that my words evoke, then the ability we both need to honestly communicate will be severely hampered. Ideas and lines of arguments will get “lost in translation” and nothing of substance or significance will be shared.

So that is where logic comes in. Logic is a system of reasoning that helps make sense of things. It helps clarify thinking and allows for people to honestly and accurately make their argument. (Argument in this sense is how people share opposing opinions and viewpoints, with the hope that you can convince someone that you are right or wrong.)

But before we look at different kinds of logical fallacies, or wrong ways to present an argument, we need to first recognize how fluid and dangerous words can be if we are not careful with our definitions. Most of us assume that the words we use are straightforward – recognizable vehicles that transfer solid ideas and concrete thoughts – but that is not always the case. In truth, I think in the past 50 years we have played fast and loose with our definitions and this disregard for precision has caused far more problems than all the bad logic combined. 

It is like building a world with silly putty. If I can change my definition because I feel like it then I can mean almost anything I want, or change an idea when I don’t like what another person says. Let me give you an example of what I am talking about from CS Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”:

“The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said – so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully – “Ah but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?” They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A ‘nice’ meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.”

Really chew on that phrase toward the end of his argument, “When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object.” This misuse of language is at an epidemic proportion in our everyday life. Speaking of the word “epidemic” let me show you how our common culture does this.

This morning I was listening to a podcast where the host was talking about how Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg both used the word “epidemic” when it comes to the murder rate of the transgendered in our society. Ms. Warren even said if she becomes President she will read the names of all those transgendered people who have been murdered once a year. By calling this an “epidemic” they both are saying this problem needs to be a top priority of our government.

This is where the host then asked the question: “If something is an epidemic, wouldn’t it be important to know the numbers? Because for something to be an epidemic don’t the numbers need to be pretty shocking and showing signs that this is becoming a widespread crisis. Well after the Human Rights Campaign shared the numbers on transgendered murders the data is paltry if not rather unimpressive at all (1.8 per 100,000 murders, where regular murders are 4.9 per 100,000).

But in our day and age you are not allowed to ask specific questions anymore. What matters most is the person’s attitude. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg want you to see them as “caring and compassionate” even if there is no real crisis. The real problem we are facing are all the people who are dying from opioid overdose. Now the numbers for that is shocking.

If we are going to learn how to really discuss ideas we need to be clear about definitions. If words are simply a reflection of my heart and how I feel in this moment we are not communicating anything at all. 

The other day I was talking to a person who said the worship at their church was awesome. I asked them, “Why was it awesome?” They answered, “because it was a special time.” I then asked, “What made it so special?” Because “I was caught up in the moment.” I then wondered, “What was the moment like?” And then they said, “It was awesome, you just wouldn’t understand because you just don’t fully understand worship the way I do.” I then wondered, “If there is no real definition for awesome, then how does he know my experience of worship was not awesome? And if there is no way of knowing, I wondered, what then were we even talking about in the first place?”

Words matter, we need to start there!