This past election cycle brought out the worst in many of us, including the candidates, at times. One observation I had is the candidate’s use of rhetoric to persuade. One logical fallacy they both used was presenting opinion as truth. The truth may hurt, but unchecked opinions can mislead. Both Hillary and Trump (as well as the other primary candidates!) took turns expressing their personal opinions as if they were truth.
Of course, there was plenty of truth presented too (e.g. voting records, documentation on what the candidates said in the past, documented decisions and actions). While both opinions and truth are important parts of our decision making process, it can be important for us each to know the difference between them. The best way to pick a fight is to present a biased opinion as truth because your opponent’s emotions will rise up and cloud his/her thinking and generate an emotional response.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion
That is what makes this country we live in so great! You have an opinion and you are free to express it! In addition, we should all want to hear it… even if we disagree. But, when we express our opinions as truth, we are committing a logical fallacy. The Ancient Greeks were so well schooled in this form of rhetoric, they were able to not only use it in their own arguments but they were also able to spot the logical fallacies when used by their opponents. If you’re interested in a full list of logical fallacies, check this out.
Where does my opinion originate?
When you have an opinion, you should ask yourself questions to uncover the truth it originates from. If you have an opinion because… you read it on the internet, that’s what your parents said, most other people my age think that… then you still haven’t found your truth. You need to keep looking.
- “Why do I think that?”
- “Where is this opinion originating?”
- “Why do I believe that to be true?”
How can I determine if it’s “a truth?”
A truth is true because it can be proven. In math, we can prove that 12 is divisible by 3. If you remember Geometry class, you probably remember doing proofs. But what about those areas outside of math and science where proof seems to be more difficult? For example, “If he’s elected president, other countries won’t want to trade with us.” or “If she’s elected healthcare costs are going to double.”
Truth is determined through deduction, but deducing truth from the future is a tricky thing. Deducing truth from the past is easier because the past is known. Sherlock Holmes is a great example of deducing what happened in the past based on clues. The future is unknown, so we can only infer (or “IN-duce”) the future based on what we’ve seen in the past. For example, water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit today and it probably will tomorrow too. It sounds reasonable and true until I tell you we are on top of a mountain at 7,500 feet above sea level and the boiling point is now 198 degrees!
Using past experiences to infer a reasonable future is completely logical, but induction is not the same as deduction. I’m not suggesting you totally abandon inductive thinking. I’m only saying that while induction may be a reasonable approach to forecasting, we need to recognize the need to leave room for exceptions. Inductive thinking is not 100% proof of what will happen.
Time to mend some fences
Regardless of where your vote landed in this presidential election, it’s time to look to the future. Working together, even when we disagree, is going to yield the greatest results for our future, and our children’s future. You don’t have to accept someone else’s ideas, but it is the mark of maturity when you can entertain their idea even without accepting it.
My prayer for our country and our world is for a remembrance that we are more alike than we are different.
What are your thoughts on the election we just experienced?
Here’s to the future!
See you next week,
Russ
For more links to leaders I follow and their insights, connect with me on Twitter and Facebook.
I could not resist commenting. Well written!