Jump to content

Logic and the Rudeness Rebuttal


Draggingtree

Recommended Posts

Draggingtree
Logic and the Rudeness Rebuttal

AUGUST 14, 2015 Gary Galles

One of the trickiest needles for libertarians to thread in public policy discussions is what I call the rudeness rebuttal. And today’s explosion in microaggression accusations just makes it trickier.

 

The rudeness rebuttal arises from logic.

 

The logical structure of an argument is from premises to conclusions—A implies B implies C…implies Z. Correctly structured, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, if a premise or step in an argument is false, factually or logically (e.g., involves a self-contradiction), even if every succeeding step is logically valid, the conclusion need not hold.

 

This is particularly important when the pivotal step involves the exact reverse of the truth, which can not only invalidate the conclusion, but confirm the opposite conclusion. That is, while A may imply Z, not-A may exclude Z from possibility). For example, something like “capitalism is survival of the fittest” is a common part of statist attacks on freedom. It is false. However, it often characterizes government actions. Consequently, survival of the fittest arguments point to government as worsening any such problem, not solving it, as they conclude. Scissors-32x32.png

 

https://mises.org/blog/logic-and-rudeness-rebuttal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1716139392
×
×
  • Create New...