Of Logic and Politics .... or the lack thereof ...

Logic is hard to appeal to at a differing level given the virtual impossibility of the majority of Singaporeans to even have an opportunity to enter our hallowed (some say hollowed) halls of higher education.

The writer below, in response to recent Parliamentary fubars, lists out in laymen terms how logic should work.

But we of course understand that politics and propaganda work hand in hand with a relatively 'lower' educated mass of voters don't we? The question then begs: should the conduct of politics even bother to pay heed to logic?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Quote:

During parliamentary debate recently, Workers Party Chief Low Thia Khiang argued that a stronger opposition presence would serve as a check against graft and corruption by the ruling party.

He was quickly rebuffed by MP Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) who eagerly labelled Low Thia Khiang’s argument as not only ’simplistic’ but also ‘incorrect’.

Ms. Rajah’s counter is that if one follows Low’s argument, “the logical outcome is that every other country with an opposition should be squeaky clean and Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world.”

Or is it?

How sound is Ms. Rajah’s “logic”?

An average student taking an elementary logic class can prove that Ms. Rajah’s argument is not only invalid, but also incorrect. (Even simplistic?)

Let us see how this is done.

Firstly, let’s examine Low Thia Khiang’s argument.

1. If there’s a great opposition presence in the parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt.
2. There is a great opposition presence in the parliament.
3. Therefore the ruling party would be less corrupt.

Expressing it in simple logic form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore Q.

Ms. Rajah asserts that if we follow Low’s line of argument, two situations will develop. One — that Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world. Two — that every other country with an opposition should be squeaky clean.

She calls it a “logical outcome”, but anyone can prove that her argument is logically invalid. Most certainly, this does not follow as a “logical outcome” from Low Thia Khiang’s argument.

Let’s examine her first claim, that Singapore should be the most corrupt country in the world.

1. If there is a great opposition presence in parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt.
2. There is not a great opposition presence in the parliament.
3. Therefore, the ruling party would be more corrupt.

Expressing it again in simple logic form:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not P.
3. Therefore Not Q.

What Ms. Rajah has done here is to commit the simplest of logical fallacies, that of Denying the Antecedent. What this means is that the argument is invalid, and the conclusion (3) is not accepted even if the premise (1-2) is true.

Let us examine another similar argument that has committed the same logical fallacy.

1. If Mr. Tan is a Singapore citizen, then he is a human being.
2. Mr. Tan is not a Singapore citizen.
3. Therefore he is not a human being.

which shares the same logical body as Ms. Rajah’s argument:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not P.
3. Therefore Not Q.

Verdict? Ms. Rajah’s first counter-argument is logically invalid, and incorrect.

Low Thia Khiang’s argument does not lead to the first “logical outcome” Ms. Rajah has proposed.

Let us go on next to prove that Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument is also logically flawed.

Her second counter-argument is that, if one is to follow Low’s reasoning, that every other country with an opposition will be squeaky clean.

However, Low Thia Khiang’s argument that a great opposition presence leads to a less corrupt government should be seen as a necessary rather than sufficient condition.

Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument that all countries that have a opposition will be less corrupt attributes sufficiency to Low Thia Khiang’s argument, when it is not clear that Low intended it to be that way.

Another nerdy way to say, Ms. Rajah, you’re wrong.

Does it logically follow if one argues: if there is a great opposition presence in parliament, then the ruling party would be less corrupt, that all countries with a great opposition presence would be less corrupt?

Ms. Rajah’s second counter-argument has yet committed another simplistic logical fallacy: Affirming the Consequence.

Reframing Low’s argument once again:

1. If the ruling party is squeaky clean, then there should be a great opposition presence in parliament. (Low’s argument)
2. The ruling party is squeaky clean.
3. There is a great opposition presence in parliament.

1. If P, then Q.
2. P.
3. Therefore Q.

Ms. Rajah’s argument:

1. If the ruling party is squeaky clean, then there should be a great opposition presence in parliament.
2. There is a great opposition presence in parliament.
3. The ruling party is squeaky clean.

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore P.

Another similar argument to show why Ms. Rajah’s logic is invalid:

Low’s argument
1. If you are pregnant, then you are female.
2. You are pregnant.
3. Therefore you are female.

Ms. Rajah argues that the logical outcome of this would be:
1. If you are pregnant, then you are female.
2. You are female.
3. Therefore you are pregnant.

Verdict: Ms. Rajah’s second-counter argument of the ‘logical outcomes’ that would follow if we were to adopt Low’s reasoning is invalid.

Indeed, under critical circumspection. Ms. Rajah’s attempt to rebut Low Thia Khiang by suggesting ‘logical outcomes’ that would follow if we adopt his reasoning fails miserably. An average student in an elementary logic class can show as we have did that the ‘logical outcomes’ that Ms. Rajah has proposed DO NOT follow from Low Thia Khiang’s arguments.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that her ‘logical outcomes’ would fall under the very same labels she attaches to Low’s argument?

Posted by: geodome83 at Thu May 28 21:33:55 SGT 2009 - End Quote.