{"id":745,"date":"2009-04-25T12:27:23","date_gmt":"2009-04-25T12:27:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/?p=745"},"modified":"2009-04-25T12:28:30","modified_gmt":"2009-04-25T12:28:30","slug":"conspiracies-and-formal-logic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/?p=745","title":{"rendered":"Conspiracies and formal logic"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Watching the outrage over the DHS memos that purportedly target all Americans on the political right as potential enemies of the state, I have come to the realization that a great many political conspiracy theories are based on a trivial error in formal logic: namely, that the implication operator is not commutative.<\/p>\n<p>The implication operator, <em>A<\/em> \u2192 <em>B<\/em> (<em>A<\/em> implies <em>B<\/em>) is true if <em>A<\/em> is false (<em>B<\/em> can be anything) or if both <em>A<\/em> and <em>B<\/em> are true. In other words, it is only false if <em>A<\/em> is true but <em>B<\/em> is false. However, <em>A<\/em> \u2192 <em>B<\/em> does not imply <em>B<\/em> \u2192 <em>A<\/em>; the former is true when <em>A<\/em> is false but <em>B<\/em> is true, but the latter isn&#8217;t.<\/p>\n<p>Yet this is what is at the heart of many conspiracy theories. For instance, a DHS report might say, that those on the fringe of the political right are motivated by the Obama government&#8217;s more permissive stance on stem cell research. Some draw the conclusion that this report implies that all who are troubled by Obama&#8217;s stance on this issue must be right-wing extremists. I could write this symbolically as follows: we have<\/p>\n<p>member(<em>e<\/em>, <em>s<\/em>) \u2192 prop(<em>e<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>)<\/p>\n<p>where member(<em>e<\/em>, <em>s<\/em>) means that <em>e<\/em> is a member of set <em>s<\/em>, and prop(<em>e<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>) means that <em>e<\/em> has property <em>p<\/em>. This symbolic equation cannot be reversed: it does not follow that prop(<em>e<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>) \u2192 member(<em>e<\/em>, <em>s<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>A closely related mistake is the confusion of the universal and existential operators. The existential operator (usually denoted with an inverted E, but I don&#8217;t have an inverted E on my keyboard, so I&#8217;ll just use a regular E), E(<em>s<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>) says that the set <em>s<\/em> has at least one member to which property <em>p<\/em> applies. The universal operator (denoted with an inverted A; I&#8217;ll just use a plain A), A(<em>s<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>) says that all members of set <em>s<\/em> have property <em>p<\/em>. Clearly, the two do not mean the same. Yet all too often, people (on both sides of the political aisle, indeed a lot of the politically correct outrage happens because of this) make this error and assume that once it has been asserted that E(<em>s<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>), it is implied that A(<em>s<\/em>, <em>p<\/em>). (E.g., a logically flawless statement such as &#8220;some blacks are criminals&#8221; is assumed to imply the racist generalization that all blacks are criminals.)<\/p>\n<p>One might wonder why formal logic is not taught to would be politicians. I fear that in actuality, the situation is far worse: that they <em>do<\/em> know formal logic, and use it to their best advantage assuming that you don&#8217;t.<\/p>\n<fb:like href='https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/?p=745' send='true' layout='standard' show_faces='true' width='450' height='65' action='like' colorscheme='light' font='lucida grande'><\/fb:like>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Watching the outrage over the DHS memos that purportedly target all Americans on the political right as potential enemies of the state, I have come to the realization that a great many political conspiracy theories are based on a trivial error in formal logic: namely, that the implication operator is not commutative. The implication operator, <a href='https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/?p=745' class='excerpt-more'>[&#8230;]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-745","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mathematics","category-politics","category-30-id","category-5-id","post-seq-1","post-parity-odd","meta-position-corners","fix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=745"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/745\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":748,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/745\/revisions\/748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/spinor.info\/weblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}