| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
The above examples are a bit frivolous, but the procedure of looking for counterexamplesapplies to many real-world dilemmas. It also highlights the difference between a correct proof,and a faulty proof that might still happen to lead to a true result. (By the way, this is the exact same skill usedwhen trying to come up with an algorithm for a problem:well, the algorithm works for this input, but can I find a something that makes one of the steps fail?If so, you then try refining your algorithmwell, I can add a test to take care of that problem; is that enough so that it always works?)
Solve this statement for [X]:
It is wrong to ban [X].Such a ban would punish those reasonable citizens who would use [X]responsibly, while those who really want to abuse [X]will be able to get it anyway, through a black market which will only subsidize othercriminal activities.
This argument is or has been commonly used for varying topics
A more rational response is to either accept all the above, or none of the above, or to realize that the stated argument wasn't everythingthat there might be implicit assumptions or arguments which actually do distinguish between these cases(the different interpretations of[X]). Being able to articulate the differences is essential.The more refined arguments may be more nuanced, and less able to fit into a sound-bite, but lead to a better understanding ofone's own values. And sometimes, upon reflection, one may realize that some of theimplicit values or premises are things they actually disagree with,once they are precisely spelled out.
In real-world issues, there are often many subtleties, and short arguments that sound airtight might be glossingover factors which are important in practice.
During daylight, there is no need to have headlights (or running lights) on:there's already plenty of light for everybody to see each other by.Even during the day, headlights slightly increase how quickly other drivers see you during (say) a routine, tenth-of-a-second glancein their mirror.
When in a turn-only lane, there is absolutely no need to signalsince there's only one way to turn,a signal can't communicating any information to other drivers!Glib, but not true: Other defensive drivers presumably know you have only one legal option,but they don't know that you know that, and they are planning reactions in case you surprise them with a suddenillegal maneuver. By signaling, you give them information which helps them better plan foryet other contingencies. Furthermore, it also gives you more confidence thatother drivers are expecting your turn, reducing your suspicion that they're about to pull a surprise maneuver on you.(True, these are all low-probability events which almost always turn out to be unnecessary.But avoiding accidents is all about minimizing risks for the one moment events do spiral out of control.)
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Intro to logic' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|