Poor Logic = Poor Decisons

I have this thing about poor logic. Arguments full of fallacies frustrate me. Every judgment, opinion and decision are but the conclusions of a set of premises, that I believe/think/suggest X because of these Y facts. The success or failure, the problems and solutions of individual lives, organizations, companies and countries depend upon the quality of the logic used to analyze the situation, whatever that might be.

Conclusions reached without any formal or systematic logical analysis can be good ("gut" decisions stem, after all, on an internal, below-the-radar logical process), and conclusions reached through vigorous use of logical analysis can be bad. Logic is not magic: it just improves your chances of reaching good conclusions. (More on my logical history below.)

Premise quantity and quality (relevant, acceptable) affect the quality of the conclusion: lots of good premises increases the chance of making a good conclusion; adding irrelevant, unacceptable premises, or not including premises that hurt your case, decreases the chance of making a good conclusion. Duh.

People in business often make the latter mistake, focusing just on the points for their case and minimizing--or not including--points that hurt their case. It is a very natural, very human thing to do, "putting your best forward" and all that. It can also be a very sneaky thing to do, a strategy focused strictly on winning the case at hand, not on what might happen in the future.

Why the screed about logic? Politics, of course; Republican arguments, again: a column by William Kristol in the NY Times, "A Heartbeat Away," specifically.

Mr. Kristol defends Sarah Palin's ability to sit in the Big Chair if tradgey happens (which BTW was John McCain's stated only test for his veep pick, pre-Palin that is). How? Because she is young, and there have been two other "young" Veeps who rose to the occasion, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, therefore Palin can rise as well. Huh?

Standardized, Kristol's argument is:

1. Palin is young
2. Teddy Roosevelt was young when he became POTUS after McKinley died
3. Harry Truman was young when he became POTUS after FDR died
4. Both Roosevelt and Truman "rose to the occasion" and became great presidents
C: Palin will also "rise to the occasion" and become a great president if McCain dies

Hogwash. Put in standard form makes it even more ludicrous. Using youth to put Palin's pre-VP background in the same class as Truman's or Roosevelt's beggars belief. Take a look at what other "qualifications" the two gents had when picked besides being generationally challenged.

Roosevelt:
* graduated from Harvard Phi Betta Kappa and magna cum laude
* wrote book, "The Naval War Of 1812," celebrated then and since as definite study of the conflict (still in print after 124 years!)
* New York Assemblyman
* Governor of New York
* Asst. Secretary of the Navy

Truman:
* served in army before and during WWI, citations for leadership
* county judge
* entrepreneur (with bankruptcy experience as well)
* twice elected US Senate (both tough races)
* Chair of high-profile Truman Committee during WWII, ferreting out military waste and fraud
* on cover of Time magazine

Compare these backgrounds with Palin's; the only thing the gentlemen and the lady truly have in common is their age. Yes, Palin was a mayor, and a governor, but can anyone seriously contend that two years of governing Alaska (through a time of budget surpluses) equate with two years governing New York? Or that the experience gleaned from her total time in office equals the foreign policy experience of leading a prominent war-time committee?

(Please, no culture/values/small town arguments: these issues may rightly be important to being a great president, but miss my point. I am arguing strictly on the experience that comes from making sense of extremely complicated systems/process/events and from managing nationwide groups or organizations with global interests--requirements that seem to be lifted straight from the President's job description.)

Mr. Kristol's argument is another example of starting with the conclusion (Palin is not a bad pick) then finding facts to support that ... warping them if necessary ... and conveniently not including other facts that don't offer support.

A better approach--one I wish to read--would be to argue why the qualities she does have meet all the requirements of the job, i.e., objective as well as subjective requirements. Just nouns and verbs, no adjectives. Finally, this is NOT an argument against Sarah Palin per se, just a plea for better logic.

I sure think better logic is needed.
_______________________
My Logical History
My first logic class was from Mark Battersby (Capilano College, 1979-80) in a course titled "Logical Self Defense," from the book of the same name. First day he warned us that this course would "make all your friends and family hate you." How's that for piquing interest!

He was right: once you learn what the red herring and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies (and many others) are, well, you find them everywhere! It is exciting, a skill you want to use, but students (me) take it too far, analyzing and correcting friend and family arguments. Students (me) soon get shunned or slammed: friends do not want to hear about problems in their arguments, and telling your father he is making a straw man argument is a losing proposition ... especially if true.