Vital Knowledge: Logic

(CC BY-NC-ND liltree)Held by many to be the foundation of all rational thought, logic is the process by what we determine to be true by establishing a firm foundation of evidence and then following fundamental principles to extrapolate truth.

For example:

A: All red heads are named Sandy.
B: Fred's daughter has red hair.
C: Fred's daughter is therefore, named Sandy.

This of course is irrelevant, as everyone knows that all redheads are named Philemon.

What good is it?

Logic has been used as a tool to keep students quiet when a teacher feels the need for a nap. Often, the teacher will hand out a piece of paper with a number of clues on it that are supposed to allow a student to determine Bob's, Frank's, Fred's, Tim's and George's last names and what kind of car they drive. More often than not, the most vital question of the entire exercise is left unanswered: Who cares?

Scholars often fall back on using logic when they find themselves unable to defend their arguments in any other way. They will throw logic in your face and tell you that they cannot possibly be wrong because logic is on their side.

This proves that logic is a demon of the evilest proportions, much like socialism.

How does it work?

Logic operates on a very fundamental principle.

If A->B and B->C, then A->C.

Simple, no? We have not yet begun to fight.

That is the basic principle, and such thinkers as Socrates and Immanuel Kant ruined it from there. They added all kinds of rules that they derived from this very simple rule.

Consider:

0 = Nothing. 
1 = A sum that is not zero.

Not hard, really. But now consider when we add addition into it.

1 + 1 = 2
2 = 1.

Why? Because 2 is only a representation of twice some imaginary whole: 2 apples is not the same as 2 Mercedes, but they are both still two.

It gets worse from there. So we don't think about it. Instead, we think of Cheese.

Fallacies

How do I know if your logic is wrong?

You don't. You just scream in my face and tell me I don't understand how you feel, then you label it as one of the following:

Accent

Don't trust the French. End of story.

Ad hoc

This is an advertisement for the Home Operation Channel. Highly spurious and not to be taken seriously.

Affirmation of the consequent

This fallacy is highly supported by those who believe that the apocalypse is coming. And it IS coming.

Amphiboly

Often referred to as the fallacy of the frog, this one is slippery and elusive, always trying to decide if it is a fallacy or a valid argument.

Anecdotal evidence

This is not a fallacy. It is a cure for logic.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

The art of arguing about antiques. That table really isn't from the civil war. They just tell you that to charge you more.

Argumentum ad baculum / Appeal to force

Muscle flexing. Very effective.

Argumentum ad crumenam

I've always found crumb cake to be rather convincing.

Argumentum ad hominem

Cases such as these are usually of arguing over words of the same spelling but differing meanings, such as "capitalism" and "cheese."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

You alone are to blame for arguing with an imbecile.

Argumentum ad lazarum

Same as above, except for sloths.

Argumentum ad logicam

Same as above, except for lawyers.

Argumentum ad misericordiam

Same as above, except for Bipolar bears.

Argumentum ad nauseam

Puking to prove a point? I think not.

Argumentum ad novitatem

Like levitating, only not.

Argumentum ad numerum

See above example using math, need I say more?

Argumentum ad populum

The US. Majority rules. If 95% of the people say you are an idiot, it must be true.

Argumentum ad verecundiam

This is an appeal to authority. Namely, "My dad can beat up your dad."

Audiatur et altera pars

Hearing alternate people. Also called schizophrenia. Very persuasive under the right circumstances.

Bifurcation

Selling two furs for the price of one. Devious.

Circulus in demonstrando

Also called circular logic. Or the circus. Barnum and Bailey would be proud.

Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of presupposition

Eh?

Fallacies of composition

See Mozart.

Converse accident / Hasty generalization

Also read: You stepped in a pile of ____.

Converting a conditional

Conversion of any sort is against the first amendment and should be stopped.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Latin gibberish. This is the art of using ancient words to sound smart and intelligent.

Denial of the antecedent

Leads to Armageddon. The Cedent came for the logic of all men. And the antecedent has come to destroy him.

The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter

"What? This is an argument? Crikes, I thought we were going to lunch."

Fallacy of division

Once again, math.

Equivocation / Fallacy of four terms

Never use four terms when three will do.

The extended analogy

The SAT

Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion

The end of The Matrix

The Natural Law fallacy / Appeal to Nature

Awesomeness

The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy

You wouldn't understand. You aren't Scottish.

Non causa pro causa

Some people can't let go of the fact that they will never be professional football players.

Non sequitur

Awesome comic.

Petitio principii / Begging the question

This one is just sad. The question has no money, you wretch. Get a job.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This is the most dangerous fallacy, as intellectuals are afraid of those who ask many questions.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

See reference above to Latin gibberish

Red herring

Used to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest.

Reification / Hypostatization

The process of repeating "What if?" constantly. Also, selling substandard equipment to poor European nations. You bastard.

Shifting the burden of proof

You answer this one, you bum.

The slippery slope argument

Also called the snowboard fallacy. Loads of fun.

Straw man

He had a brain all along. Who knew?

Tu quoque

Read "Dew? Coke?" To which I say, "Dew."

Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle

This is for those poor people whose midsections need to be distributed throughout the rest of their bodies.

You read this

Why?

Example: Logical proof

A: You read this to the end.
B: People who read articles on logic are bums.
C: This is an article on logic.
D: Therefore, you are a bum.
E: Why are you still reading?
F: Join the Army, they said.
G: See the world, they said.
H: I'd rather be sailing.

Logic's Future

Logic will continue to be used until it finally achieves its goal by proving that nothing can be proven. At this point theologians and barristers alike will switch to other, far more silly, variations, such as Meta-Logic or Ultra-Logic with Fresh Lavender Scent. This moment in history is referred to by most Future Historians as the "Moment everything goes to bloody hell".

Comments

[forbidden void]

I kind of thought this one had been lost. Good to know that it's still hanging around. Although... no one told me that it was getting posted back up again.

[Mr. Encyclopedia]

Unfortunately I lost a lot of the old content when the old site boiled away into the ether, but between some of the backups I have and the Internet Wayback Machine I have recovered much of it. Personally, I think Logic is one of the best articles from the Encyclopedia.