3.1 KiB
Executable file
| title |
|---|
| concerning fallacies |
most appeals to logic are appeals to authority
To conclude the discussion on logic, I would like to examine in depth the propagation of knowledge, in order to present the greatest result; the fact that most appeals to logic are themselves a logical fallacy.
Logical fallacies are, like all named things, characterizations; and they grant a person the ability to understand if a proposition is logically consistent in the broader system of an axiomatic system.
The fallacy that is most worth discussing here is the one committed when appealing to an authority, which should not and cannot stand as a logical argument. This is because every authoritative figure, being human, has the capacity to make mistakes, or to not express themselves in a perfect manner, or to even act maliciously. At the same time, every individual appealing to said authority might have misunderstood the content of the argument, or act maliciously for personal benefit.
Besides, such techniques have been used countless times throughout history, in order to convince and manipulate individuals to surrender their liberties, their properties and themselves to others.
This is the main argument used by the supporters of logic; in favour of it, and against other religions.
Nevertheless, logic itself not only appeals to authority, but this fallacy is necessary for it's continued existence and propagation.
The evolution and spread of logical ideas is based on continuity. Every new generation receives scientific knowledge, folklore, theology, and using these as a foundation is able to expand the collective understanding of the world. Through this action, humanity does not need to start from zero, but rather they only have to rely on the authoritative guidance of the people before themselves to advance.
It is this very act however that, according to logic itself as born by this very process, is fallacious.
Even worse, the very act of propagating knowledge, as well as any form of communication, must appeal to an authority, for why else would a person communicate unless they felt like they had something to say.
Under this realization, logic is incapable of logically leading an individual towards the Truth, except for possibly a single path.
This path demands for each and every individual to have a non-finite time, so that they may explore Truth on their own, without any prior knowledge, using only their own internalized logic and deriving the Truth themselves, as they understand it, using a series of logical arguments. Knowledge earned in this manner asks of the individual to verify the claims made along the way themselves, which seemingly leads, finally, the individual to the Truth.
I say 'possibly' a single path, and 'seemingly' leads to the Truth, because even in this scenario appealing to authority is unavoidable; for does a person not have to trust themselves that the knowledge they have is valid? Do they not have to rely on themselves as an authoritative figure to explore past the beginning of their reason?
Alas, this is the greatest and most subtle flaw of logic.