1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:05,160
Speaker 1: Chapter twenty seven, deductive reasoning. We have seen in a

2
00:00:05,160 --> 00:00:09,800
preceding chapter that from particular facts we reason inductively to

3
00:00:09,880 --> 00:00:14,320
general principles or truths. We have also seen that one

4
00:00:14,359 --> 00:00:17,399
of the steps of inductive reasoning is the testing of

5
00:00:17,399 --> 00:00:22,559
the hypothesis by deductive reasoning. We shall now also see

6
00:00:22,800 --> 00:00:26,320
that the results of inductive reasoning are used as premisses

7
00:00:26,640 --> 00:00:31,559
or bases for deductive reasoning. These two forms of reasoning,

8
00:00:32,119 --> 00:00:36,119
these two forms of reasoning are opposites and yet complementary

9
00:00:36,200 --> 00:00:40,320
to each other. They are in a sense independent, and

10
00:00:40,399 --> 00:00:45,439
yet are interdependent. Brooks says, the two methods of reasoning

11
00:00:45,679 --> 00:00:49,679
are the reverse of each other. One goes from particulars

12
00:00:49,799 --> 00:00:54,679
to generals, the other from generals to particulars. One is

13
00:00:54,679 --> 00:00:58,759
a process of analysis, the other is a process of synthesis,

14
00:00:59,759 --> 00:01:04,280
rise from facts to laws. The other descends from laws

15
00:01:04,560 --> 00:01:08,400
to facts. Each is independent of the other, and each

16
00:01:08,480 --> 00:01:13,159
is a valid and essential method of inference. Halleck Well

17
00:01:13,200 --> 00:01:18,120
expresses the spirit of deductive reasoning as follows. After induction

18
00:01:18,239 --> 00:01:22,400
is classified certain phenomena and thus given us a major premise,

19
00:01:22,920 --> 00:01:26,799
we may proceed deductively to apply the inference to any

20
00:01:26,799 --> 00:01:30,319
new specimen that can be shown to belong to that class.

21
00:01:31,079 --> 00:01:35,840
Induction hands over to deduction a ready made premise. Deduction

22
00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:40,519
takes that as a fact, making no inquiry regarding its truth.

23
00:01:41,280 --> 00:01:45,040
Only after general laws have been laid down, after objects

24
00:01:45,120 --> 00:01:49,599
have been classified, after major premises have been formed, can

25
00:01:49,640 --> 00:01:55,680
deduction be employed. Deductive reasoning proceeds from general principles to

26
00:01:55,760 --> 00:02:01,200
particular facts. It is a descending process, analytic in its nature.

27
00:02:01,840 --> 00:02:05,799
It rests upon the fundamental axiomatic basis that whatever is

28
00:02:05,840 --> 00:02:09,439
true of the whole is true of its parts, or

29
00:02:09,840 --> 00:02:14,319
whatever is true of the universal is true of the particulars.

30
00:02:15,319 --> 00:02:19,800
The process of deductive reasoning may be stated briefly as follows.

31
00:02:20,560 --> 00:02:23,960
One a general principle of a class is stated as

32
00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:28,479
a major premise. Two, a particular thing is stated as

33
00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:32,879
belonging to that general class, this statement being the minor

34
00:02:32,919 --> 00:02:37,759
premiss Therefore, three, the general class principle is held to

35
00:02:37,800 --> 00:02:42,919
apply to the particular thing, this last statement being the conclusion.

36
00:02:43,680 --> 00:02:48,439
A premise is a proposition assumed to be true. The

37
00:02:48,479 --> 00:02:52,719
following gives us an illustration of the above process. One

38
00:02:53,080 --> 00:02:57,240
major premiss A bird is a warm blooded, feathered, winged

39
00:02:57,479 --> 00:03:03,560
oviparous vertebrate. Two minor premis the sparrow is a bird.

40
00:03:04,039 --> 00:03:09,599
Therefore three conclusion, the sparrow is a warm blooded, feathered,

41
00:03:09,719 --> 00:03:17,080
winged oviparous vertebrate. Or again one major premiss. Rattlesnakes frequently

42
00:03:17,120 --> 00:03:23,039
bite when enraged, and their bite is poisonous. Two minor premis,

43
00:03:23,680 --> 00:03:29,479
this snake before me is a rattlesnake. Therefore three conclusion.

44
00:03:30,199 --> 00:03:33,719
This snake before me may bite when enraged, and its

45
00:03:33,759 --> 00:03:38,639
bite will be poisonous. The average person may be inclined

46
00:03:38,639 --> 00:03:41,080
to object that he is not conscious of going through

47
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:45,639
this complicated process when he reasons about sparrows or rattlesnakes,

48
00:03:46,080 --> 00:03:49,599
but he does. Nevertheless, he is not conscious of the

49
00:03:49,639 --> 00:03:53,479
steps because mental habit has accustomed him to the process,

50
00:03:54,039 --> 00:03:58,000
and it is performed more or less automatically. But these

51
00:03:58,080 --> 00:04:02,240
three steps manifest in all process of deductive reasoning, even

52
00:04:02,319 --> 00:04:06,280
the simplest. The average person is like the character in

53
00:04:06,319 --> 00:04:09,400
the French play who was surprised to learn that he

54
00:04:09,400 --> 00:04:12,840
had been talking prose for forty years without knowing it.

55
00:04:13,479 --> 00:04:17,279
Jevons says that the majority of persons are equally surprised

56
00:04:17,519 --> 00:04:20,199
when they find out that they have been using logical

57
00:04:20,319 --> 00:04:25,480
forms more or less correctly, without having realized it. He says,

58
00:04:26,199 --> 00:04:30,160
a large number, even of educated persons, have no clear

59
00:04:30,279 --> 00:04:34,439
idea of what logic is. Yet in a certain way,

60
00:04:34,959 --> 00:04:38,000
everyone must have been a logician since he began to speak.

61
00:04:39,519 --> 00:04:42,600
There are many technical rules and principles of logic which

62
00:04:42,600 --> 00:04:46,920
we cannot attempt to consider here. There are, however, a

63
00:04:46,959 --> 00:04:50,680
few elementary principles of correct reasoning which should have a

64
00:04:50,720 --> 00:04:54,879
place here. What is known as a syllogism is the

65
00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:58,240
expression in words, of the various parts of the complete

66
00:04:58,279 --> 00:05:03,000
process of reasoning or argument. Weightly defines it as follows.

67
00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:07,600
A syllogism is an argument expressed in strict logical form,

68
00:05:08,000 --> 00:05:11,240
so that its conclusiveness is manifest from the structure of

69
00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:14,759
the expression alone, without any regard to the meaning of

70
00:05:14,800 --> 00:05:19,240
the term. In short, if the two premisses are accepted

71
00:05:19,360 --> 00:05:22,639
as correct, it follows that there can be only one

72
00:05:22,680 --> 00:05:28,879
true logical conclusion resulting therefrom. In abstract or theoretical reasoning,

73
00:05:29,160 --> 00:05:32,519
the word if is assumed to precede each of the

74
00:05:32,519 --> 00:05:38,199
two premisses. The therefore before the conclusion resulting from the if.

75
00:05:38,639 --> 00:05:45,079
Of course, the following are the general rules governing the syllogism. One,

76
00:05:45,160 --> 00:05:48,600
Every syllogism must consist of three and no more than

77
00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:55,959
three propositions, namely, one the major premise, two the minor premiss,

78
00:05:56,000 --> 00:06:02,040
and three the conclusion. Two. The conclusion must naturally follow

79
00:06:02,079 --> 00:06:06,759
from the premisses. Otherwise the syllogism is invalid and constitutes

80
00:06:06,800 --> 00:06:12,720
a fallacy or sophism. Three. One premiss at least must

81
00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:18,560
be affirmative. Four If one premiss is negative, the conclusion

82
00:06:18,720 --> 00:06:23,720
must be negative. Five One premiss at least must be

83
00:06:23,839 --> 00:06:29,560
universal or general. Six If one premiss is particular, the

84
00:06:29,639 --> 00:06:35,560
conclusion also must be particular. The last two rules five

85
00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:40,839
and six contain essential principles of all the rules regarding syllogisms,

86
00:06:41,439 --> 00:06:44,519
and any syllogism which breaks them will be found also

87
00:06:44,759 --> 00:06:47,639
to break other rules, some of which are not stated

88
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:51,519
here for the reason that they are too technical. These

89
00:06:51,519 --> 00:06:55,439
two rules may be tested by constructing syllogisms in violation

90
00:06:55,560 --> 00:06:59,360
of their principles. The reason for them is as follows

91
00:07:00,120 --> 00:07:05,240
rule five, because from two particular premisses no conclusion can

92
00:07:05,319 --> 00:07:10,079
be drawn, as for instance, one, some men are mortal.

93
00:07:10,879 --> 00:07:14,720
Two John is a man. We cannot reason from this

94
00:07:15,120 --> 00:07:18,920
either that John is or is not mortal. The major

95
00:07:18,959 --> 00:07:24,000
premise should read all men Rule six, because a universal

96
00:07:24,079 --> 00:07:28,240
conclusion can be drawn only from two universal premises, an

97
00:07:28,240 --> 00:07:32,279
example being needless here as a conclusion is so obvious

98
00:07:33,839 --> 00:07:38,519
cultivation of reasoning faculties. There is no royal road to

99
00:07:38,600 --> 00:07:42,079
the cultivation of the reasoning faculties. There is but the

100
00:07:42,120 --> 00:07:49,240
old familiar rule, practice, exercise, use. Nevertheless, there are certain

101
00:07:49,319 --> 00:07:53,079
studies which tend to develop the faculties in question. The

102
00:07:53,079 --> 00:07:57,839
study of arithmetic, especially mental arithmetic, tends to develop correct

103
00:07:57,879 --> 00:08:01,800
habits of reasoning from one truth to another, from cause

104
00:08:02,279 --> 00:08:07,000
to effect. Better still is the study of geometry, and

105
00:08:07,079 --> 00:08:09,759
best of all, of course, is the study of logic

106
00:08:10,120 --> 00:08:13,040
and the practice of working out its problems and examples.

107
00:08:13,639 --> 00:08:17,120
The study of philosophy and psychology also is useful in

108
00:08:17,160 --> 00:08:20,759
this way. Many lawyers and teachers have drilled themselves in

109
00:08:20,839 --> 00:08:25,480
geometry solely for the purpose of developing their logical reasoning powers.

110
00:08:27,000 --> 00:08:31,519
Brooks says, so valuable is geometry as a discipline that

111
00:08:31,560 --> 00:08:35,360
many lawyers and others review their geometry every year in

112
00:08:35,480 --> 00:08:38,480
order to keep the mind drilled to logical habits of thinking.

113
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:41,559
The study of logic will aid in the development of

114
00:08:41,600 --> 00:08:46,279
the power of deductive reasoning. It does this first by

115
00:08:46,320 --> 00:08:49,679
showing the method by which we reason, to know how

116
00:08:49,759 --> 00:08:53,480
we reason, to see the laws which govern the reasoning process.

117
00:08:54,080 --> 00:08:57,399
To analyze the syllogism and see its conformity to the

118
00:08:57,480 --> 00:09:00,720
laws of thought is not only an exercise of reasoning,

119
00:09:01,080 --> 00:09:03,600
but gives that knowledge of the process that will be

120
00:09:03,639 --> 00:09:07,440
both a stimulus and a guide to thought. No one

121
00:09:07,440 --> 00:09:11,120
can trace the principles and processes of thought without receiving

122
00:09:11,159 --> 00:09:15,879
thereby an impetus to thought. In the second place, the

123
00:09:15,919 --> 00:09:19,480
study of logic is probably even more valuable because it

124
00:09:19,480 --> 00:09:24,679
gives practice in deductive thinking. This perhaps is its principal value.

125
00:09:25,200 --> 00:09:29,840
Since the mind reasons instinctively without knowing how it reasons.

126
00:09:30,480 --> 00:09:33,279
One can think without the knowledge of the science of thinking,

127
00:09:33,679 --> 00:09:36,840
just as one can use language correctly without a knowledge

128
00:09:36,879 --> 00:09:40,639
of grammar. Yet, as the study of grammar improves one's speech,

129
00:09:41,159 --> 00:09:45,080
so the study of logic can but improve one's thought.

130
00:09:46,159 --> 00:09:49,080
In the opinion of the writer hereof one of the

131
00:09:49,080 --> 00:09:53,000
best those simple methods of cultivating the faculties of reasoning

132
00:09:53,519 --> 00:09:56,480
is to acquaint one's self thoroughly with the more common

133
00:09:56,519 --> 00:10:01,480
fallacies or forms of false reasoning. Thoroughly, that not only

134
00:10:01,559 --> 00:10:05,159
is the false reasoning detected at once, but also the

135
00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:09,720
reason of its falsity is readily understood. To understand the

136
00:10:09,759 --> 00:10:12,919
wrong ways of reasoning is to be on guard against them.

137
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:16,919
By guarding against them, we tend to eliminate them from

138
00:10:17,000 --> 00:10:20,840
our thought processes. If we eliminate the false, we have

139
00:10:20,919 --> 00:10:24,919
the true left in its place. Therefore, we recommend the

140
00:10:24,960 --> 00:10:28,679
weeding of the logical garden of the common fallacies, to

141
00:10:28,759 --> 00:10:32,399
the end that the flowers of pure reason may flourish

142
00:10:32,480 --> 00:10:36,159
in their stead. Accordingly, we think it well to call

143
00:10:36,200 --> 00:10:39,080
to your attention in the next chapter to the more

144
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:44,399
common fallacies and the reason of their falsity. End of

145
00:10:44,480 --> 00:10:52,360
Chapter twenty seven, Chapter twenty eight. Fallacious reasoning a fallacy

146
00:10:52,720 --> 00:10:57,080
is to fined as an unsound argument or mode of arguing, which,

147
00:10:57,440 --> 00:11:00,519
while appearing to be decisive of a question, is in

148
00:11:00,559 --> 00:11:05,200
reality not so, or a fallacious statement or proposition in

149
00:11:05,240 --> 00:11:08,639
which the error is not readily apparent. When a fallacy

150
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:12,879
is used to deceive others, it is called sophistry. It

151
00:11:12,960 --> 00:11:15,919
is important that the student should understand the nature of

152
00:11:15,960 --> 00:11:21,279
the fallacy and understand its most common forms. As Jevons says,

153
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:24,840
in learning how to do right, it is always desirable

154
00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,600
to be informed as to the ways in which we

155
00:11:27,639 --> 00:11:31,080
are likely to go wrong. In describing to a man

156
00:11:31,240 --> 00:11:33,960
the road which he should follow, we ought to tell

157
00:11:34,039 --> 00:11:36,639
him not only the turnings which he is to take,

158
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:41,240
but also the turnings which he is to avoid. Similarly,

159
00:11:41,559 --> 00:11:44,480
it is a useful part of logic which teaches us

160
00:11:44,639 --> 00:11:47,480
the ways and turnings by which people most commonly go

161
00:11:47,600 --> 00:11:53,240
astray in reasoning. In presenting the following brief statement rearding

162
00:11:53,279 --> 00:11:56,519
the more common forms of fallacy, we omit so far

163
00:11:56,559 --> 00:12:00,559
as possible the technical details which belong to text books

164
00:12:00,720 --> 00:12:09,080
on logic fallacies. One true collective, but false particular. An

165
00:12:09,120 --> 00:12:12,200
example of this fallacy is found in the argument that

166
00:12:12,279 --> 00:12:17,039
because the French race collectively are excitable, therefore a particular

167
00:12:17,080 --> 00:12:21,399
Frenchman must be excitable, or that because the Jewish race

168
00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:26,759
collectively are good business people, therefore the particular jew must

169
00:12:26,799 --> 00:12:30,039
be a good business man. This is as fallacious as

170
00:12:30,120 --> 00:12:32,840
arguing that because a man may drown in the ocean,

171
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:36,279
he should avoid the bath, basin or cup of water.

172
00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:38,960
There is a vast difference between the whole of a

173
00:12:39,000 --> 00:12:44,360
thing and its separate parts. Nitric acid and glycerine separately

174
00:12:44,639 --> 00:12:49,919
are not explosive, but combined they form nitroglycerin, a most

175
00:12:50,039 --> 00:12:54,919
dangerous and powerful explosive. Reversing this form of illustration well

176
00:12:54,960 --> 00:12:58,519
remind you of the old saying salt is a good thing,

177
00:12:59,000 --> 00:13:02,960
but one doesn't want to be put in pickle. Two

178
00:13:03,720 --> 00:13:09,039
irrelevant conclusion. This fallacy consists in introducing in the conclusion

179
00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:13,120
matter not contained in the premises, or in the confusing

180
00:13:13,200 --> 00:13:18,080
of the issue. For instance, one, all men are sinful,

181
00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:24,480
two John Smith is a man. Therefore three John Smith

182
00:13:24,639 --> 00:13:28,639
is a horse thief. This may sound absurd, but many

183
00:13:28,759 --> 00:13:32,320
arguments are as fallacious as this, and for the same reason,

184
00:13:32,919 --> 00:13:37,919
or another and more subtile form. One all thieves are liars.

185
00:13:38,519 --> 00:13:43,799
Two John Smith is a liar. Therefore three John Smith

186
00:13:44,039 --> 00:13:47,559
is a thief. The first example arises from the introduction

187
00:13:47,639 --> 00:13:50,879
of new matter, and the last from the confusion of

188
00:13:50,919 --> 00:13:57,799
the issue. Three. False cause. This fallacy consists in attributing

189
00:13:57,879 --> 00:14:01,320
cause to a thing which is merely incident with or

190
00:14:01,360 --> 00:14:06,799
precedent to the effect. For instance, one, the cock crows

191
00:14:06,960 --> 00:14:11,039
just before or at the moment of sunrise. Therefore, two

192
00:14:11,639 --> 00:14:16,480
the cock crowing is the cause of the sunrise. Or again, one,

193
00:14:16,840 --> 00:14:20,600
bad crops follow the election of a Whig president. Therefore,

194
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:24,440
two the Whig Party is the cause of the bad crops.

195
00:14:25,279 --> 00:14:30,240
Or again one where civilization is the highest, there we

196
00:14:30,279 --> 00:14:35,200
find the greatest number of high hats. Therefore, two high

197
00:14:35,279 --> 00:14:41,799
hats are the cause of civilization. Four. Circular reasoning. In

198
00:14:41,840 --> 00:14:46,200
this form of fallacy, the person reasoning or arguing endeavors

199
00:14:46,240 --> 00:14:49,639
to explain or prove a thing by itself or its

200
00:14:49,639 --> 00:14:54,440
own terms. For instance, one, the Whig Party is honest

201
00:14:54,720 --> 00:14:59,440
because it advocates honest principles. Two the Whig principles are

202
00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:03,639
honest because they are advocated by an honest party. A

203
00:15:03,679 --> 00:15:06,879
common form of this fallacy in its phase of sophistry,

204
00:15:07,320 --> 00:15:09,759
is the use of synonyms in such a manner that

205
00:15:09,799 --> 00:15:13,440
they seem to express more than the original conception, whereas

206
00:15:13,519 --> 00:15:16,279
they are really but other terms for the same thing.

207
00:15:17,080 --> 00:15:21,120
An historical example of circular reasoning is the following. One

208
00:15:21,559 --> 00:15:24,519
the Church of England is the true church because it

209
00:15:24,600 --> 00:15:28,639
was established by God. Two it must have been established

210
00:15:28,639 --> 00:15:32,279
by God because it is the true Church. This form

211
00:15:32,320 --> 00:15:36,159
of sophistry is most effective when employed in long arguments

212
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:41,240
in which it is difficult to detect it. Five begging

213
00:15:41,360 --> 00:15:44,840
the question. This fallacy arises from the use of a

214
00:15:44,879 --> 00:15:48,200
false premiss, or at least of a premise the truth

215
00:15:48,240 --> 00:15:51,480
of which is not admitted by the opponent. It may

216
00:15:51,519 --> 00:15:55,320
be stated simply as the unwarranted assumption of a premiss,

217
00:15:55,679 --> 00:15:59,879
generally the major premiss. Many persons in public life are

218
00:16:00,159 --> 00:16:03,919
you in this way. They boldly assert an unwarranted premise

219
00:16:04,320 --> 00:16:07,720
and then proceed to argue logically from it. The result

220
00:16:07,759 --> 00:16:11,240
is confusing to the average person, for the steps of

221
00:16:11,279 --> 00:16:15,240
reasoning being logical, it seems as if the argument is sound,

222
00:16:15,679 --> 00:16:19,759
the fact of the unwarranted premise being overlooked. The person

223
00:16:19,879 --> 00:16:23,639
using this form of sophistry proceeds on Aaron Burr's theory

224
00:16:23,679 --> 00:16:28,799
of truth being that which is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.

225
00:16:30,399 --> 00:16:34,080
Bulwin makes one of his characters mention a particularly atrocious

226
00:16:34,120 --> 00:16:37,600
form of this fallacy, although an amusing one, in the

227
00:16:37,639 --> 00:16:42,600
following words, whenever you are about to utter something astonishingly false,

228
00:16:43,159 --> 00:16:47,440
always begin with it is an acknowledged fact, et cetera.

229
00:16:47,840 --> 00:16:52,039
Sir Robert Filmer was a master of this manner of writing. Thus,

230
00:16:52,320 --> 00:16:55,320
with what a solemn face that great man attempted to

231
00:16:55,399 --> 00:16:59,519
cheat he would say, it is a truth undeniable that

232
00:16:59,559 --> 00:17:03,200
they cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever, either great

233
00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:07,440
or small, et cetera. But in that same multitude there

234
00:17:07,519 --> 00:17:09,880
is one man among them, that, in nature hath a

235
00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:12,880
right to be king of all the rest, as being

236
00:17:12,960 --> 00:17:17,160
the next heir of Adam. Look carefully for the major

237
00:17:17,200 --> 00:17:22,079
premise of propositions advanced in argument, spoken, or written. Be

238
00:17:22,160 --> 00:17:25,680
sure that the person making the proposition is not begging

239
00:17:25,720 --> 00:17:31,119
the question by the unwarranted assumption of the premise. General

240
00:17:31,200 --> 00:17:38,039
rule of inference, Hislop says, concerning valid inferences and fallacious ones,

241
00:17:38,759 --> 00:17:43,279
we cannot infer anything we please from any premisses we please.

242
00:17:43,960 --> 00:17:48,359
We must conform to certain definite rules or principles. Any

243
00:17:48,440 --> 00:17:52,039
violation of them will be a fallacy. There are two

244
00:17:52,079 --> 00:17:56,720
simple rules which should not be violated. One, the subject

245
00:17:56,759 --> 00:17:59,960
matter in the conclusion should be of the same generals

246
00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:05,400
as in the premises. Two, the facts constituting the premisses

247
00:18:05,680 --> 00:18:09,799
must be accepted and must not be fictitious. A close

248
00:18:09,839 --> 00:18:13,079
observance of these rules will result in the detection and

249
00:18:13,160 --> 00:18:18,400
avoidance of the principal forms of fallacious reasoning and sophistry.

250
00:18:19,119 --> 00:18:24,440
Sophistical arguments. There are a number of tricky practices resorted

251
00:18:24,480 --> 00:18:28,440
to by persons in argument that are fallacious in intent

252
00:18:28,799 --> 00:18:31,920
and result, which we do not consider here in detail,

253
00:18:32,160 --> 00:18:35,640
as they scarcely belong to the particular subject of this book.

254
00:18:36,440 --> 00:18:39,319
A brief mention, however, may be permitted in the interest

255
00:18:39,400 --> 00:18:45,400
of general information. Here are the principal ones. One arguing

256
00:18:45,440 --> 00:18:48,680
that a proposition is correct because the opponent cannot prove

257
00:18:48,720 --> 00:18:52,279
the contrary. The fallacy is seen when we realize that

258
00:18:52,319 --> 00:18:55,559
the statement the moon is made of green cheese is

259
00:18:55,599 --> 00:18:59,480
not proved because we cannot prove the contrary. No amount

260
00:18:59,519 --> 00:19:03,079
of failure to disprove a proposition really proves it, and

261
00:19:03,240 --> 00:19:06,960
no amount of failure to prove a proposition really disproves it.

262
00:19:07,759 --> 00:19:10,759
As a general rule, the burden of proof rests upon

263
00:19:10,799 --> 00:19:14,240
the person stating the proposition, and his opponent is not

264
00:19:14,319 --> 00:19:18,319
called upon to disprove it or else have it considered proved.

265
00:19:19,079 --> 00:19:22,039
The old cry if you cannot prove that it is

266
00:19:22,119 --> 00:19:28,160
not so is based upon a fallacious conception. Two abuse

267
00:19:28,200 --> 00:19:32,079
of the opponent, his party, or his cause. This is

268
00:19:32,160 --> 00:19:35,440
no real argument or reasoning. It is akin to proving

269
00:19:35,440 --> 00:19:39,960
a point by beating the opponent over the head. Three.

270
00:19:40,839 --> 00:19:43,279
Arguing that an opponent does not live up to his

271
00:19:43,359 --> 00:19:47,839
principles is now argument against the principles he advocates. A

272
00:19:47,839 --> 00:19:51,200
man may advocate the principle of temperance and yet drink

273
00:19:51,279 --> 00:19:54,960
to excess. This simply proves that he preaches better than

274
00:19:55,000 --> 00:19:58,279
he practices, But the truth of the principle of temperance

275
00:19:58,519 --> 00:20:02,079
is not affected in any way. Thereby, the proof of

276
00:20:02,119 --> 00:20:05,160
this is that he may change his practices, and it

277
00:20:05,200 --> 00:20:08,000
cannot be held that the change of his personal habits

278
00:20:08,200 --> 00:20:13,480
improves or changes the nature of the principle. Four. Argument

279
00:20:13,519 --> 00:20:17,759
of authority is not based on logic. Authority is valuable

280
00:20:17,920 --> 00:20:21,920
when really worthy and merely as corroboration or adding weight,

281
00:20:22,599 --> 00:20:25,839
but it is not logical argument. The reasons of the

282
00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:30,119
authority alone constitute a real argument. The abuse of this

283
00:20:30,240 --> 00:20:33,079
form of argument is shown in the above reference to

284
00:20:33,119 --> 00:20:39,359
begging the question in a quotation from Bulwa. Five. Appeal

285
00:20:39,400 --> 00:20:43,160
to prejudice or public opinion is not a valid argument,

286
00:20:43,440 --> 00:20:48,359
for public opinion is frequently wrong, and prejudice is often unwarranted,

287
00:20:49,079 --> 00:20:52,319
and at the best, they have nothing to do with

288
00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:56,119
the case from the standpoint of logic. The abuse of

289
00:20:56,160 --> 00:21:00,759
testimony and claimed evidence is also worthy of examination, but

290
00:21:00,839 --> 00:21:06,119
we cannot go into the subject here. Fallacies of prejudice.

291
00:21:07,000 --> 00:21:10,119
But perhaps the most dangerous of all fallacies in the

292
00:21:10,119 --> 00:21:12,559
search for truth on the part of the most of

293
00:21:12,640 --> 00:21:17,119
us are those which arise from the following one. The

294
00:21:17,200 --> 00:21:20,000
tendency to reason from what we feel and wish to

295
00:21:20,039 --> 00:21:23,799
be true, rather than from the actual facts of the case,

296
00:21:24,119 --> 00:21:28,640
which causes us unconsciously to assume the mental attitude of

297
00:21:28,839 --> 00:21:31,759
if the facts agree with our likes and pet theories,

298
00:21:32,119 --> 00:21:35,240
all is well. If they do not, so much the

299
00:21:35,279 --> 00:21:40,559
worse for the facts. Two, the tendency in all of

300
00:21:40,640 --> 00:21:43,599
us to perceive only the facts that agree with our

301
00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:47,519
theories and to ignore the others. We find that for

302
00:21:47,559 --> 00:21:51,200
which we seek and overlook that which does not interest us.

303
00:21:51,839 --> 00:21:55,640
Our discoveries follow our interest, and our interest follows our

304
00:21:55,680 --> 00:22:01,000
desires and beliefs. The intelligent man or woman realizes these

305
00:22:01,039 --> 00:22:04,599
tendencies of human nature and endeavors to avoid them in

306
00:22:04,720 --> 00:22:08,200
his or her own reasoning, but is keenly conscious of

307
00:22:08,240 --> 00:22:12,319
them in the arguments and reasoning of others. A failure

308
00:22:12,359 --> 00:22:16,480
to observe and guard one's self against these tendencies results

309
00:22:16,519 --> 00:22:21,839
in bigotry, intolerance, narrowness, and intellectual astigmatism.