We must teach logic in Primary school

Post date: Aug 21, 2010 1:4:37 AM

In our country the ability to detect false promises, lies and duplicity should be imparted to kids from the first standard , kind of like the defense against the dark arts that wizards underwent in potter-world. Newspapers lie, magazines lie, politicians lie, teachers lie ( or dont know enough to tell the truth), textbooks are lies and parents also lie so the ability to distill the truth logically is important.

Following is an example of a lie by a news source :  

There is a child prodigy - tathagat tulsi http://ibnlive.in.com/news/patna-boy-tulsi-is-youngest-professor-at-iitb/126570-3.html  He was vicitimized in media some time back

...http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=1140#compstory

he even posted a comment on this site to refute the claim  http://www.expressindia.com/news/messages.php?newsid=1140#90622

clearly the expressindia story was loads of bullcrap , but how do you find that out by reading it ?

clearly our education is lacking some important content.

following are some of the important things that i think we should know to distill truth from bullshit:

Logical Fallacies And other lies:  ( the following borrows heavily from http://lonewolfsden.net/2008/08/07/a-guide-for-theists-on-how-to-debate-atheists/)

1. Pascal’s Wager .

   1. Quote minining: Quote mining is taking a quite from some one and using out of context.

2. False statistics

• 1. Straw man argument is a fallacious argument where you set up an argument that is a misrepresentation of some one else’s argument (straw man) then debunk the misrepresentation. Example: Argument: With out religion I’m free of all the pointless rules that religion has. Straw man: So with out religion you have no morality, you have nothing to stop you from raping and killing. The argument was “with out religion I’m free of all the pointless rules (like not being allowed to pleasure yourself, not being allowed to be gay, not being allowed to say certain things, having to go through pointless rituals and so on)” it said nothing about morality or rules that are not pointless.

  2. False dichotomy: A false dichotomy is when you present an argument as if it only has 2 options when in reality there are more. Example: “Jesus was ether a lier, insane or the Messiah” this is a false dichotomy cause there more than those 3 possibility’s, he could be completely mythological, the stories could be an amalgamation of mythology’s, stories and historical people, there could have been a historical Jesus but his teachings could have been altered and exaggerated over time.

  3. Slippery slope: A slippery slope is argument that states that cause “A” leads to “B” and “B” leads to “C” and “C” is wrong thus “A” is wrong. Example: “If we allow same sex marriages marry then its only a matter of time before we allow people to marry animals and children”

  4. Whether “A” leads to “B” and whether “B” is wrong or not has no barring on whether “A” it true or not and often “A” does not lead to “B” cause if “B” is wrong then its wrong (same sex marriages are not wrong and marrying animals or children is wrong)

  5. Red herring: A red herring is a response to another argument that does not address the arguments. Example: Argument: There is no evidence for the existence of God. Red herring: You say theres no evidence for God but you can not disprove the existence of God.

  6. The argument is not about the lack evidence for the existence of God not about disproving the existence of God, the red herring avoids the argument about the lack of evidence for the existence of God and instead state that you can not disprove the existence of God which is a different argument.

  7. Ad hominem: An ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”) is not an argument but an attack on some one and an avoidance of the persons arguments. Example: “How can you talk about right and wrong? Your an atheist, you have no morals”

  8. Ad hominems don’t deal with the validity of the argument and thus say nothing about the validity of the argument

3. Arguements From:

   2. 1. Authority: An argument from authority is an argument states that “X” authority says “Y” thus “Y” must be true. Example “The Pope says using contraceptives is a sin so it must be a sin”

      2. Just cause some one in in a position of authority does not mean that there are right, arguments must be based on logic and evidence.

      3. Popularity: An argument from popularity is an argument that states that cause something is popular it must be true. Example: “Every one uses Windows so Windows must be the best OS”

      4. Just cause something is popular doesn’t mean its true, right or good.

      5. Ignorance: An argument from ignorance is an argument that states that cause we do not know the answer to something it mean that “X” must be the answer “No one know where the universe came from so God must have done it”

      6. Just cayuse we don’t know the answer does not mean that “X” is the answer, it means we don’t know the answer.

      7. Incredulity: An argument from personal incredulity is an argument that that cause the person doesn’t know or can’t imagine how “A” could be true, it must be false. Example: “I can’t imagine the complexity of life could come about by chance, there had to have been a designer for such complexity to exist”

      8. Whether “A” is true or not is independent of persons ability to imagine how it could be true.

      9. Emotion: An argument from emotion is an argument that appeals to people emotion and bypasses actual logical or evidence and does not deal with the validity of the argument. For Example “If you don’t believe you will go to hell where you will suffer for ever. Do you wont to go to hell” The argument appeals to a fear of hell, it doesn’t deal with the validity of the argument.

      10. Nature: An appeal to nature is an argument that states cause something is natural or unnatural it is right, wrong, true, false, good or bad. Example: “Homosexuality is unnatural so its wrong”

      11. Whether something is natural or unnatural has no barring on whether it is right, wrong, true, false, good or bad.

      12. Consequence: An argument from consequences is an argument that states that if “X” is true there would be good or bad consequence thus “X” is false or true” Example: “If evolution is true than that means humans are just animals, we are not animals so its not true”

      13. The consequence of something being true or false has no baring on whether it it is true or false and these consequences are not false.