Without Proof, How it is Logically Valid to Say that Someone Does Something Because They’re Evil?
Let’s suppose there is an evil person who you think is plotting evil acts. You still don’t know whether he is, but push came to shove; circumstances demanded you challenge him to a debate, and he accepts wholeheartedly. You claim that he is evil because he is doing things for an evil cause. You tell him your half-baked evidence. He retorts, stating that “You are attacking me personally” and he will not step down to your level. He argues with sweet logical reasoning. Not only did he came up with clever rhetoric that swayed the illogical or absent minded, but it also impressed the logicians who checked his statements and found it logically valid. Your point, and arguments, was completely shut down using pure logic. From there, he concludes, “See, how can I be evil with the reasons you provided. Clearly, I’m not evil.” Is your stance still valid, assuming that he is evil? (We can assume that doing things for an evil cause makes a person evil in this question)
— Example A.
What’s the Answer?
Yes, it is still valid. Your current stance makes logical sense already.
That probably makes no sense to you. How can you maintain your belief that he is evil after he destroyed your arguments and still say that you can still be logical? Easy, but only after we pull out the logic diagrams.
As a note: the rest of the blog will use logic words — as in stuff like “fallacy” or “premise”. This blog will try to reduce the number of times it’s used though.
What do you think of this statement?
A→B means If A, then B
Pretty simple. It is merely the definition of that arrow symbol into English. Now, here is another definition of that arrow symbol, this time into logical operations:
A→B = not(A) or B
Yes, it looks like math, but bear with me here. Since logical correctness actually means, after all this time of using it, that whatever you say conforms to the rules set out by logic (which involves things like true, false, AND, and OR), this might become a little uncomfortable.
Here is a text-based table on how A and B being either true or false affects the result of the statement A→B:
A | B | A→B
T | T | T
T | F | F
F | T | T
F | F | T
The point of this is to highlight the third row where A is false and B is true. This one fact is essentially the proof. Take your argument “he is evil because he is doing things for an evil cause”. In logic, this argument would be broken down into two convenient parts, A and B. A is “he is doing things for an evil cause” and B is “he is evil”. This ordering makes logical sense. If the evil person does things for an evil purpose, that person is evil.
Notice that in the debate, all the points you claim prove that he’s evil have been countered. In a sense, A has been falsified i.e. A is false. However, it has been declared that the person you had a debate with is evil. That means that B has been verified i.e. B is true. Looking at the proof chart, you can see that overall, your point is valid.
This is an example of an Argument from Fallacy, a type of fallacy that is directly contradictory to all of logic, which is when someone’s point being invalid makes that person’s entire claim invalid. Example 1 shows how this argument doesn’t work — when your point is true even though your arguments aren’t.
So?
How many times has someone shut down someone else’s point because their argument is invalid? This proof essentially means that logically, their argument against that person’s point is irrelevant if it winds up being true.
In fact, judging someone’s point as invalid because their argument isn’t true can also be interpreted as an equally-as-fallacious Ad Hominem Argument, which is when anything about the person is the reason why a point is invalid. Though this, most everyday arguments, even if the points are perfectly logical, fall into this duo trap.
Well That Doesn’t Make Any Sense!
If it hasn’t hit you yet, this whole exercise essentially states that if someone is something — and is as in a total, 100% fact — no statement, valid or invalid, can make that not true. The consistency of that fact is what makes sense. It might not make sense to you, heck the proof sounds like a hack, but it gives some people much needed justification on their side, especially if they’re on the losing side.