False Truth

As I listen to the media make their arguments about this and that, I generally only listen to that which I think valid, but I have been reading through Isaiah these days, and becoming more and more convicted about my life as a Believer.


One of my points of conviction is my listening of others... so, I decided to sit through a news cast that I would have either not chosen or quickly turned off. And, here is what I found.


Most arguments made in support of some policy or presupposition of the world were invalid syllogisms(or arguments) according to the rules of logic.


The chief concern of logic is how one truth is connected with another truth. A syllogism is a set of two or more premises related to each other in such a way that all of them lead to and are supportive of the conclusion. A syllogism may be valid but not true, but truth in logic is found when a syllogism is both valid and true.


When a syllogism claims that the truth of its premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion, it is said to involve a deductive inference. Deductive reasoning, by its nature, holds to a very high standard of correctness, but a deductive inference succeeds only if its premises provide such absolute and complete support for its conclusion that it would be inconsistent to suppose that the premises are true but the conclusion false.


When a syllogism claims merely that the truth of its premises make it likely or probable that its conclusion is also true, it is said to involve an inductive inference. The standard of correctness for inductive reasoning is much more flexible than that for deductive reasoning. An inductive syllogism succeeds whenever its premises provide some legitimate evidence or support for the truth of its conclusion.


What I have found in this news cast and in the media in general is inductive reasoning presenting as deductive in every way. The premises are carefully stated with an absoluteness that is not questioned and put together in a syllogism that leads to the conclusion of choice. It is an inverted syllogism... one that begins with the conclusion of choice and adds the premises it needs in order to make the conclusion as true as possible.


For example, the coverage of the Letterman/Palin exchange is classic inductive presented as deductive. The media makes the case that Palin freely choose to put her family in the media so they must take what comes, but this premise has no relation to the conclusion of condoning the Letterman comments about a 14 year old girl. I personally find them disturbing, and even more disturbing is a media that condones such sick comments about a 14 year old little girl for the sake of political reasons.


Illogical, invalid and untrue syllogisms running rampant. The Bible is very clearly about those who speak false truths... be wary. I have found the same on the right as well, so we need not pat ourselves on the back too quickly. As Believers we must be different, even in our arguments, and then, maybe we will walk in a way that will be a testimony to a watching world.