| 1 | How do we discern what is true or not true? If we do treat the information presented to us with Respect, how then do we make informed choices? |
| 2 | This is no easy task when one may be bombarded with claims, promises and challenges from a range of sources. |
| 3 | It is why the concept of Trust is so important to virtually each and every one of us with Trust meaning simply “that some statement, promise, claim can be relied upon as having the basis of truth”. |
| 4 | If someone we Trust says that a concept or object or rule or idea is valid, we are much more likely to believe what they are saying. |
| 5 | The only problem to this natural and critical method of learning is when those whom we Trust should not be trusted. |
| 6 | This is sadly the case sometimes with politicians, professionals and religious leaders who create the appearance of being trustworthy, but in fact are impostors and deceitful in their conduct. |
| 7 | Trust is essential to the fabric of society. Without it, a society will ultimately collapse. |
| 8 | Equally, a lack of basic competence of knowledge and cognition also risks the breakdown of a society as systems fail, services fail and people are abandoned. |
| 9 | So how do we work towards a greater level of Trust as well as a basic level of competence of knowledge? |
| 10 | The answer is by using such tools as Logic. |
| 11 | Logic describes the systematic use of certain methods of reasoning and the study of such systems as a discipline in itself. |
| 12 | From ancient times until the last two hundred years, Logic along with Rhetoric and Grammar were considered the three essential sciences or the Trivium – through which all other knowledge and science was derived. |
| 13 | Thus a true scholar and hermeneutic was expected to master the “three ways” of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric before embarking on the study of the Quadrivium of Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy and the Arts. |
| 14 | In simple terms, Logic is any formal system of argument of proofs. |
| 15 | So while the term is historically associated with Aristotle, many ancient civilizations have had their own equivalent system of Logic. |
| 16 | Whatever name is attributed, most formal systems of Logic possess the same essential seven elements being: Definitions, Rules, Axioms, Assumptions, Formula, Variables and Proofs. |
| 17 | For example, Definitions are the terms and meanings for the elements of the system of Logic itself such as concepts as Proposition, Inference and Conclusion. |
| 18 | Rules are the rules or “assumptions” for the system of Logic itself, on the rules of how it is constructed and applied and what distinguishes it from other systems. |
| 19 | Axioms are the statements that are trying to be proven or dis-proven using the system of Logic. |
| 20 | Assumptions are the specific assumptions associated with a Proposition that affect the way in which Formula are constructed as well as Variables. |
| 21 | Formula are symbolic sub-statements constructed in a formal way with Variables to define relations and dependencies. |
| 22 | Variables are the symbolic representation of certain assumptions as previously defined. |
| 23 | Proofs are validations that an Axiom satisfies all conditions for which it is intended. |
| 24 | While all formal systems of Logic possess generally the same seven elements, the essential differences in Rules enables us to group them into three distinct types being Bivalent Linear Logic, Multivalent Linear Logic and Multivalent Multilinear Logic. |
| 25 | Bivalent Linear Logic is based on the presumption of a single chronological set of dependent time events and only one of two possible outcomes or Conclusions. |
| 26 | Multivalent Linear Logic is based on the presumption of a single chronological set of dependent time events and two or more possible outcomes or Conclusions. |
| 27 | Multivalent Multilinear Logic is based on the presumption of a multiple set of interdependent time events and two or more possible outcomes or Conclusions. |
| 28 | Only Multivalent Multilinear Logic is capable of approximating to any degree of accuracy the reality of Divine Law, Natural Law or Cognitive Law. |
| 29 | Both Multivalent Linear Logic and Bivalent Linear Logic are wholly unable to accurately portray the reason, function and effect of any real world events with any degree of accuracy. |
| 30 | Yet despite these differences of accuracy, all forms of Logic are based on multiple layers of assumptions, meaning no Logical conclusion can be considered perfectly true. |
| 31 | Instead, Logic enables us to deduce the most likely events, or relations when we employ all our faculties of reason, deduction and cognition. |
| 32 | Thus, Logic helps us to see the basic framework of relations and function of the Universe and of all complex systems that exist within the Universe itself. |
| 33 | Using Logic, we are able to deduce such common sense reasoning that if A is first and B is second, then A comes before B. |
| 34 | Or if A is the source of all authority for B, then B can never have more authority than A. |
| 35 | Or if B depends on the authority of A to exist and B is severed and abjures from A, then the authority of B ceases to exist. |
| 36 | While Bivalent Linear Logic is the most unnatural system for portraying, recreating or analyzing the reason, cause and effect of any real world events, it is the most functional of all three (3) logic models in terms of law because of its simplicity. |
| 37 | Therefore, Bivalent Linear Logic is the foundation of all Positive Law or law derived from Positive Law. |
| 38 | Unfortunately, like all systems and assumptions of the mind, Logic is also subject to corruption and error. Errors in logic are most commonly called Logical fallacies. |
| 39 | A classic example of a logical fallacy is a Non Sequitur such as (a) “A red haired man killed a policeman” therefore (b) “All red haired men are killers” or (c) “Red haired men only kill police”. |
| 40 | Non Sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow” and refers to logical fallacies when the conclusion does not follow its premises. |
| 41 | To a man or woman of sound mind and reason, such an argument is obviously flawed and untrue and injurious to the law. |
| 42 | That is why for more than two thousand years, the most forbidden act for a Judge has been to use a “logical fallacy" in any legal argument. |
| 43 | Thus it remains a test of any competent forum of law that when one or more fallacies are found to exist in any legal argument, especially one associated with a verdict then logically the whole argument itself may be discredited, derogated or abrogated. |
| 44 | An example of another logical fallacy is Argumentum ad Hominem such as (a) “the author wrote a document” and (b) “the author was caught lying once many years ago” therefore (c) “the book is all lies and cannot be trusted”. |
| 45 | Argumentum ad Hominem is Latin for “to the man” and is a particularly cruel and malicious form of logical fallacy whereby an argument is constructed upon false and untested presumptions of character in order to validate an argument. |
| 46 | This is an all too common form of logical fallacy and flawed argument in public debates based on the absurdity that smear and defaming is somehow equivalent to the Trivium of Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric. |
| 47 | Another example of logical fallacy is Post Hoc such as (a) “A black haired man was seen walking with a large amount of money past a Bank that had been robbed earlier” therefore (b) “The black haired man robbed the bank”. |
| 48 | Post Hoc is short for the Latin phrase Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc meaning “after this, therefore because of this” and refers to logical fallacies that falsely jump to false conclusions on the sequence of events. |
| 49 | Yet another example of logical fallacy is Ignoratio Elenchi such as (a) “XYZ is a famous and respected leader” and (b) “AAA is a policy endorsed by XYZ” therefore (c) “AAA must be a good policy”. |
| 50 | Ignoratio Elenchi is Latin for “ignorance of the refutation” and refers to logical fallacies that may or may not be valid in other circumstances but irrelevant to the issue in question. |
| 51 | Ignoratio Elenchi is a frequent logical fallacy of irrelevant quotations, endorsements and citations that add nothing to the substance of the argument, except the appearance of authority. |
| 52 | While there are many more examples of logical fallacies, these few examples at least serve to demonstrate the various flaws of flawed thinking. |
| 53 | The purpose therefore of providing these various examples is to show how even the tools of Logic can be deliberately or mistakenly misused or abused. |
| 54 | When such deliberate abuse of flawed logic is associated with a particular religion or religious doctrine, then any such objective discussion becomes extremely difficult. |
| 55 | Often, this is because of how such flawed logic is defended and protected – not with cognition, or logic or reason, but with superstition, with fanaticism and with a lack of respect and willful ignorance. |
| 56 | Sadly, it is not the fault of the fanatic or the zealot that seeks to defend logical fallacies dressed up as religious doctrines, but those that concocted such falsities in the first place. |
| 57 | There is no evidence to suggest the formation of the universe or its operation is in anyway illogical or logically flawed. |
| 58 | Therefore, why should we accept logical fallacies as elements of any science of the Divine? |
| 59 | This brings us to the next key concept to discuss before we begin reviewing the core structures of Summa Elementis Theologica. |
| 60 | The next concept is the idea of reason. |
Search Texts
Download book as a pdf
1 Exordium - Beginning