For the last few days I have been trying to plow through an exceptionally boring book on logic, but despite the fact that the book has been lethally dull, it has reminded me of why I appreciate thinking about the limits of logic from time to time. It is particularly easy for people, once we reach a certain level of intellect, to overinflate the value of our logic and to underestimate the capacity for self-deception, especially because we falsely equate a mastery of the rules and mechanics of logic with a mastery of thought and reason. Instead of mastery, one often finds the worst sort of error, in a flawlessly executed chain of reasoning from immensely flawed premises, all that erudition and logic wasted because it was based on unsound principles, from which no sound conclusions could be drawn.

One of the most notable examples of flawed deductive reasoning comes from the writings of two-time Vice President and longtime South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun. In deductive reasoning, one premises and from those premises one follows relentlessly towards conclusions. Where someone is as able at following the rules of logic as Calhoun was, one can find no flaws in the syllogisms that proceed from premises to conclusions to further conclusions. That said, one can find a lot of flaws in the premises. What is most notable for Calhoun as a model for our own times is the way in which he sought to legitimize the behavior of an immoral minority in seeking to nullify all laws against their corrupt and immoral behavior through the courts while seeking to ensure that any laws passed in support or protection of that minority were seen as being above reversal. Eventually, this behavior prompted a bloody war that destroyed the power of that corrupt minority completely, beyond restoration. Not all nations are so lucky.

It is not merely in deductive reasoning, though, where faulty premises destroy the legitimacy of one’s arguments. In inductive reasoning, where one draws general conclusions from particular cases, faulty premises are even more commonly to be found. For example, it was long reasoned by Europeans that because all of the swans they had ever seen were white, that black swans did not exist. When black swans were found to exist (in Australia, I believe) in large quantities, it caused a shock because whiteness had always been associated with the species, even though color is a quality that varies in just about every type of being. Likewise, when our familiarity with a class of people (like men, for example) depends on a highly biased view of a highly limited sample of people, it is easy for people to make mistaken and extremely broad and harsh judgments that are mistaken because the sample is not broad or representative enough. It is this sort of mistake that encourages the faults of logic that led to misandry and other forms of bigotry.

What are we to do about these problems. We must be keen to build on the best foundations possible, and also to be aware that the towers of our arguments, like physical structures, are only going to be as strong as their base. Structural excellence or beautiful ornamentation in the absence of a firm foundation or placing a structure on a firm bedrock is pointless, as such a worldview or building will not endure. The principles that undergird a successful faith are one and the same with the principles of structural engineering or logic. Likewise, if our acquaintance with people is not large enough to come to sound and reasonable judgments about others, enough to recognize the range of character and temperament and so forth, we need to expand as well as deepen our understanding of those around us. Perhaps that means being more willing to listen, to show oneself friendly, to travel, as well as to share oneself in fellowship and service. How else are we to become wise?