Posted by
grassroots_conservative on Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:40:52 AM
There
are three immutable laws that are commonly referenced in the study of
logic:
The
principle of identity:
any statement that is true, is true.
The
principle of non-contradiction:
a statement cannot be both true and false.
The
principle of excluded
middle:
a statement must
be either true or false.
Now
at a glance, those look pretty cut and dry—even to a certifiable
moron—and yet so many people are fooled on a regular basis by
statements that violate those laws. What can be learned from looking
at two statements that are clear contradictions and yet still both
true? The answer is simply that the statements are generalities or
they have not been sufficiently explained. Their terms require more
“precising” definitions.
As
if you didn't already know from history, or if you couldn't tell by
the goings-on in this year's campaigns, obfuscation is the preferred
tactic in swaying voters. Some call it lies, some call it
misrepresentation; but the trick is that the obfuscater leaves a back
door open by purposely being just vague enough to be technically
correct but just specific enough to convey the wrong message. You
yourself know the practice well because you have done it when you
have had to deliver bad news. You say something that literally means
one thing, but the context in which it is used conveys a wholly
different meaning—a white lie.
Now
some ideologies (such as Marxism) claim through the practice of their
philosophies that half-truths are just as good as whole truths since,
without them, the whole thing collapses like a house of cards. George
Orwell famously illustrated this principle from the immortal line
from his book 1984:
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
I'll leave you to research this one.
You
have heard the contradictory accusations fly across the debate floors
and the various media ads: “So-and-so raised taxes;” “He's
lying. I lowered taxes.” Then you see different pundits (whom you
may have thought would give you a straight answer) arguing on
opposite sides while you, the viewer, are left just as bewildered as
ever. Now most people would just go with a gut feeling and trust
whichever one appeals more to their innate senses, but if you are
truly wise you will understand that THIS IS YOUR MOMENT TO MAKE THE
CLEAREST JUDGMENT ABOUT SOMEONE'S CREDIBILITY!
What
was the principle I explained? They can't both be true, and yet
neither is an untruth (technically). So there is a further
explanation, and more precising terms are needed to reach a
conclusion. The truth is in the terminology.
Obfuscation:
Statement
1: Candidate “A” raised taxes.
Statement
2: Candidate “A” lowered taxes.
Truth:
Candidate
“A” raised the tax
revenue.
The total amount of taxes brought in (tax revenue) went up.
Candidate
“A” lowered the tax
rate.
You paid a smaller percentage of what you earned.
Now
you know which one is purposely misleading you in this hypothetical
example. The second set of statements are perfectly clear and
non-contradictory. In case some of you think that that is a
mathematical impossibility (to lower taxes and get higher revenue) I
encourage you to take a few economics courses. This law of
economics is extremely important to understand: in certain cases,
lowering taxes raises revenue—both short term and long term. Know
these principles for yourself, and don't trust any politician to
automatically do what is best for you.