Outside a train station near Tokyo, hundreds of people cheer as Sohei Kamiya, head of the surging nationalist party Sanseito, criticizes Japan’s rapidly growing foreign population.
As opponents, separated by uniformed police and bodyguards, accuse him of racism, Kamiya shouts back, saying he is only talking common sense.
Sanseito, while still a minor party, made big gains in July’s parliamentary election, and Kamiya’s “Japanese First” platform of anti-globalism, anti-immigration and anti-liberalism is gaining broader traction ahead of a ruling party vote Saturday that will choose the likely next prime minister.
No, it’s just what logic is. Anti-vaxer doesn’t have to know the science. Not knowing something doesn’t mean my reasoning lacks logic. I can invent some facts and then apply logic to them. Logic doesn’t have to operate on true statements. “All unicorns are pink and all pink animals eat clouds hence all unicorns eat clouds”.
That’s… not how that works when you make statements about the world. Your unicorn example is all well and good in a universe where there are only hypothetical animals, but you’re eliding big chunks of that chain. “Unicorns are pink” is a valid statement in the abstract, but if you’re arguing about animals in the real world that’s not where the chain starts. The chain goes: unicorns exist, unicorns are pink, all pink animals eat clouds.
And of course in this situation you need to evaluate each statement. Unicorns exist is going to be a big fat FALSE, which means you can’t claim all unicorns eat clouds and argue it’s a logical statement. It’s a meaningless statement by itself because it depends on a false assumption.
Which is my exact point. You are claiming the argument is logical because you’re assuming the only requirement is that it is internally consistent when all their premises are accepted. But the premises are false, so it’s not. I appreciate that you’re getting stuck when the chain of statements they cherry pick changes over time (see the free speech example), but they’re not meaningfully different. If you let them cherry pick the clauses they need to verify and ignore everything else they can make a consistent argument in the moment about anything, including vaccines and flat planets and jewish space lasers.
I mean, no they can’t because they suck at this. But still, they can make something close enough to one that if they speak fast and loudly enough on the Internet they can get more morons to follow their channels than to block them, so… here we are, I suppose.
“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are MORE dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s a logical statement.
“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose A”. That’s logical.
In this case, to change the outcome you need to attack the facts. You have to prove that vaccines are in fact LESS dangerous and then, using the same logic, the person will conclude that he should vaccinate his kids.
“I want to protect my children and I believe that vaccine are LESS dangerous then disease so I don’t vaccinate my kids” - that’s illogical statement.
“I want lower value and I believe A < B so I choose B”. That’s illogical.
In this case you’re not going to argue the facts. The person already thinks that vaccines are LESS dangerous but his logic is wrong. You have to fix theirs logic and they will arrive a the correct conclusion.
The original case of anti-foreigner sentiment is the first case. The logic is valid, the facts are wrong. For some reason you’re not getting the difference.
No, I’m getting what you’re saying.
I’m saying what you’re saying is wrong because it demands you consider only the statements they are explicitly making and disregard any statements they are not enumerating but that need to be included for it to follow some semblance of logic.
You are arguing that “I believe” has the capacity to contain all the false premises and justify them as long as every action that isn’t belief-based remains internally consistent.
I am saying that… well, no, you need to assess the premises included in that belief to evaluate the entire statement.
“I want to drain the swamp so I vote for Trump because I believe he’ll drain the swamp” or “I want to protect children from pedophiles and I believe Trump will do that” are just as valid of a statement, regardless of whether Trump is a convicted criminal or a sex offender.
As long as you are willing to collapse all incorrect arguments into “belief”, you can justify the logic of any premise at all by just assuming the speaker is incorrect somewhere else that you’re not evaluating. It’s entirely tautological at that point. All human action follows some perceived set of incentives. Not all human action makes sense.
You’re also presuming that the incorrect statements that make sense to you are fixable, which they absolutely are not. None of these people are working down that logic chain that you’re stating. Let me be clear, you won’t convince an antivaxer by changing their factual basis. Their factual basis is built to reach the conclusion they want to reach.
It’s also important to point out that even if that was possible, “we have a population crisis so we need to close the borders” is a contradiction, and it’s exactly what these guys are saying. They aren’t saying “we prefer the effects of the population crisis to the changes to our culture immigration brings”. That’s not the statement in the first place.
The statement is fundamentally incongruous because it’s incomplete and backwards. The real train of thought here is as follows:
“I hate foreigners” “Our population is shrinking” “I miss when women worked for me having babies and cleaning after me” “Foreigners are coming here because our population shrinking creates demand for them” “If women worked for me again having babies and cleaning after me we would be able to grow our population without creating demand for foreigners I hate”
The statement being provided is strategic. They won’t say what they want, they will act to reach it. That includes misrepresenting their argument.
Yes, I can see that.
Logic is based on facts, ie: if you jump into a pool > you will get wet.
Believing that logic is not factually-based is absolutely off-base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. Formal logic is the study of deductively valid inferences or logical truths. It examines how conclusions follow from premises based on the structure of arguments alone, independent of their topic and content.