To Tell The Truth

Author Tony DeMaio

TO TELL THE TRUTH
(It depends upon what you mean by “is”.)

LBT: In considerable frustration recently your Editor howled, “Don’t they teach logic anywhere in the United States any more?! Do we have to write a basic handout on syllogisms and modus ponens?!” The answer, fortunately, is “No.” Tony De Maio always has a great answer ready. Today we present his “The Rules of Reasoning,” complete, handy, yet presented in Tony’s masterly way suitable for explaining them to your kids to help them sort out what politicians and even textbooks are actually saying.

Consider the statement, “I tell the truth”. It sounds so trivial—until you examine it.

Most folks think “lying” is the opposite of “telling the truth”—t’ain’t so. The opposite of “telling the truth” is NOT telling the truth, of which “lying” is but one aspect. “The truth” can easily evade detection—and often does. In many cases, the “truth” will never and can never be known.

“Telling the truth” is quite easily defined. It means “telling it like it is”—not necessarily how you think it is. On the other hand, NOT “telling the truth” has many faces.

1. One such face is lying. I choose to define lying to be “saying something you know is not true”. Lying, like fraud, involves willful deception. One must KNOW that what one is saying is not true. As such, lying, like fraud, is quite difficult to prove. One must “get inside the head” of the liar.

A typical “lie” is where a person, suffering from a hangover, is asked, “How do you feel?” and replies, “Just fine.” “Lies” come in all sizes and shapes, and varying degrees of importance. In some cases, it is impossible to lie. When asked, “Is there a God?” no answer is lying, since the very definition of “lying” implies knowledge of the truth.

An “interesting” question is when someone speaks the truth, but thinks it is a lie, are they lying? For example, if someone states, “2 + 3 is 5”, but BELIEVES it is “six“, are they lying?

Unless one can read minds, one should be very careful before accusing someone of “lying”.

2. Another face is deception. This is the path taken by most scoundrels so that later, when caught, they can claim, “I did not lie.” It involves saying something that is not a lie, but is intended to mislead. It may well be a case of saying, “John is a good man—he is sober on Sundays.” Of course, John may be sober every day of the week. The speaker is not “telling a lie”, but he is certainly not “telling the truth”.

3. Another form of deception is “omission”. In “Bowling for Columbine”, Michael Moore showed that the NRA held its convention in Columbine merely two weeks after the shooting—implying a “lack of sensitivity”. Moore omitted the fact that the convention had been planned for two years, and it could not be cancelled because of logistic and legal reasons. “Lying?” Certainly not. “Telling the truth?” Certainly not.

4. “Sincerity” is another aspect of “the truth”. Insincerity is easy to define. It is the gigolo that pretends to be in love with a woman who pretends to be rich. If one truly believes something that is untrue and communicates it, one is not “lying”; one is not telling the truth either. When Bush (1) said, “No new taxes.” Then instituted new taxes, he broke a pledge. Did he lie? One will never know. He may well have been completely sincere. Did he “tell the truth”—Clearly, no.

One should always be sincere–even if one does not mean it.

5. Closely akin to “sincerity” is a mistake. Clearly, if one makes an “honest mistake”, he is not lying. Hence if someone tells you that 2 + 3 = 6, is he lying? Possibly, but it is quite likely he just made a mistake. The very term “honest mistake” makes that clear. Closely akin to a “mistake” is “memory”. Ample studies have shown that if two people view the same scene, each will report it differently. Neither are “lying”, and only if a video of the event is made can it be determined which (if either) is “telling the truth”.

6. Another method of “not telling the truth” is to lay claim to knowledge that cannot be possessed, even though one may believe he DOES possess such knowledge. One case is to state the reason why someone else acted as they did. Clearly, unless one can read minds, one cannot be privy to the reasons why someone (else) took a particular action. In many cases, the person that committed the act does not know the reason(s) why he did so.

Another example is the claim that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Clearly, such knowledge cannot be known. To claim to have such knowledge is to claim omniscience. Lying? Perhaps. An error? Perhaps. Telling the truth? Perhaps, but often one will never and can never find out when such a claim is made if it is true.

7. Another form of not “telling the truth” is to distort what is said, then attack the “interpretation”. Many such cases are occurring each day during this election campaign.

In his “State of the Union” speech, Bush (2) stated, “British intelligence informed us that Saddam was trying to buy Uranium from Africa.” This was distorted to state, “Bush said Saddam was buying Uranium from South Africa.” Which was then attacked. (Note that this is an example of asserting knowledge, which cannot be known, as in #6 above. It is not possible to know Saddam was not attempting to buy Uranium from Africa. Ironically enough, it appears that the statement was true initially. People reject sound logic at their own peril.)

Also, the statement that “There are links between Saddam and al Qaeda,” has been distorted and warped to be, “Bush said Saddam was linked to the 911 attack”. Lies? Perhaps. Mistake? Perhaps. Telling the truth? Definitely not.

8. Another way of “not telling the truth” is to be a victim of circumstances. When you sign a loan or credit application, you make certain statements concerning how you will pay the bill. Sometimes circumstances prevent you from fulfilling that obligation. Did you lie? Probably not. Did you tell the truth? No.

9. Aristotelian logic is an excellent tool for those seeking truth. One aspect of that logic system is:

If A implies B; then –B implies –A; or A => B; then –B => –A
(If A being true means B is true; then if B is NOT true, A is NOT true.)

An example from Geometry may help.

If this figure is a square, then it is a rectangle. (Since all squares are rectangles.)

From this, we can draw the conclusion: If it is NOT a rectangle, then it is NOT a square.

The reader will note that it is quite improper to state:

“If it is a rectangle, then it is a square.” (reverse causality)
or “If it is not a square, then it is not a rectangle”

9.a. One should note that the figure MAY be a square. There is no way of knowing with the present information. Over the past many years, this writer has seen many, many instances of the false logic of “reverse causality”. If we traverse back to “no new taxes”, the reasoning is as follows: If Bush (1) lied about raising taxes, then he would raise taxes. Bush (1) raised taxes, therefore Bush (1) lied. Also, if Cheney wants to “take care of his friends”, he’ll give government contracts to Haliburton. Haliburton got government contracts, therefore Cheney is “taking care of his friends”. Rain causes wet sidewalks. Sidewalks are wet, therefore it rained.

One might note the “danger” of such reasoning when accepted by the public. One could take ANY event, concoct a “damaging” premise, then reverse the causality. Such is being done quite frequently today. Oftentimes the premise is a motive (see paragraph 6 and 12).

9.b. A closely related case to “reverse causality” is the “false premise”. Many believe that if the premise can be proven false, then the conclusion has been proven false. For example:
If it is a square, then it is a rectangle.

Many believe that if it can be proven that the figure is not a square, then one has proven that the figure is not a rectangle. Clearly this is not true. Consider, “If weapons of mass destruction do not exist, then they cannot be found.” Clearly, if it could be proven that the weapons DO exist, that does not necessarily mean that they CAN be found. When a person makes such an assertion (reverse causality, false premise), is he lying? Perhaps. Is he making an error? Perhaps. Is he telling the truth? Perhaps—but if he IS telling the “truth” it is being done inadvertently. There is no logical basis for his “truth”.

An alternate formulation of the “false premise” error is to accept a false statement as a premise to an argument. From the old proverb, “If horses were wishes, then beggars would ride.” Clearly, horses are not wishes, and beggars do not ride. However, should one accept the fact that wishes are horses, then any conclusion is plausible. This is often dressed up by using related propositions. Hence, “If the Republicans want to starve children, they will reduce the school lunch program.” (This form of “logic” can be very effective when combined with reverse causality, and a “plausible” conclusion.)

9.c. Another case of faulty reasoning is the “False Hypothesis”. Consider: “There is no credible evidence that al Qaeda was tied to 911”. In this case, there is no relationship between the propositions to consider. Based upon this statement, one might just as well state “There is no credible evidence that al Queda was NOT tied to 911”. One could just as accurately state that there is no credible evidence that Superman was (or was not) tied to 911. I have observed with amazement as ignorant people (some quite prominent) have publicly tried to make the case that, “Since there is no evidence, then it must NOT be true.” When they make this claim, are they telling the truth? Perhaps—but if so, they are doing so inadvertently.

9d. Another aspect of Aristotelian logic is the transitive property of implication,

as: A => B; and B => C; then A => C
or: if A being true means B is true; and B being true means C is true; then
A being true means C is true

To use another geometric example:

If it is a square, then it has four right angles;
If it has four right angles, then it is a rectangle;
Thus: If it is a square, then it is a rectangle.

Consider: Bill is younger than Sam. Sam is younger than Mary. Therefore, Bill is younger than Mary. It is unusual to find such links in real life, since it is difficult enough to find one set of true implications

Consider: At a recent political rally, I saw the sign, “Billionaires for Bush.” The implication is that if you are a billionaire, you are for Bush. From media, I am aware that Kerry’s wife (Theresa Heinz) has (at least) a billion dollars. From this, I can conclude that Theresa Heinz is for George Bush. Clearly, SOMETHING is wrong. As previously stated, one ignores sound logic at their own risk.

Consider also: Republicans favor “the rich”. Republicans want to cut taxes. Therefore, Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich. The conclusion is simply not (necessarily) true; however much political capital has been accumulated by attempting to link the propositions. Lies? Perhaps. Mistakes? Perhaps. Telling the truth? Definitely not.

10. Many people believe it is possible to “prove a negative”. A little thought will establish the difficulty of such a feat. Our founding fathers well knew the difficulty of “proving one’s innocence”. (It is quite difficult to prove that you did NOT commit some act. How would one prove that one is not a child molester?) Thus, they established the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. The court must prove that you DID do it.

Consider attempting to prove that weapons of mass destruction do NOT exist in Iraq. What evidence would be possible? Proving the existence is easily accomplished methodologically—simply find them and point to them. Proving the non-existence is probably impossible without scouring every inch of ground (and underground) in the country. (Even that would not prove that they do not exist, since it could be claimed that they were moved to a previously searched location.) Those who would unequivocally state, “There are no weapons of mass destruction.” are ignorant of the laws of logic. Are they lying? Who knows. Are they practicing deception? Perhaps. Are they telling the truth? Probably not, but possibly so. In such cases, one cannot know, and most probably never will know. Logically, the statement cannot be “proven true”, it can only be proven false.

An effective defense to such an “attack” is to ask the person, “What evidence would you accept?” Since no evidence is possible, it immediately places them on the defensive.

11. Another type of error is the some/all error. Clearly, SOME rectangles are squares. From that, some erroneously conclude that we can treat ALL rectangles as squares. An example taken from a recent talk show may provide some insight. It was claimed:

SOME fourteen year olds are being tried as adults. If we are going to try fourteen year old “children” as adults, then fourteen year olds should be given the right to vote. (Or, in actuality, ALL fourteen year olds should be allowed to vote.)

OR; SOME people cannot or will not plan for their retirement; therefore everyone must belong to Social Security.

Lying? Probably not. Deception? Possibly. An error in logic? Probably. “Telling the truth”. Definitely not. Using a reductio ad absurdum argument (take it to the extreme and see if it holds water), that would imply that ANY fourteen year old should have all the privileges of an adult–drinking, marriage, contract, weapons carry permit, driving, full time work, dropping out of school, etc., simply because we try some fourteen year olds as adults.

12. Another method of “not telling the truth” is to simply ignore the issue, attach a motive to the action, then attack the motive. Some people, noting the fact that there is oil in Iraq make the claim that the Iraq war was “started” because of oil. As can be seen, this methodology is closely related to “false premise”. Is this “lying”? No, I don’t think so. Is it “telling the truth”? No, I don’t think so. I suggest that it is a form of “deception”.

Like the “reverse causality” (9a above), such “logic” is quite insidious and dangerous when used to convince the public that a particular course of action is incorrect. It is particularly effective, because when charged with a scurrilous motive, the “opponent” is placed in the position of “proving a negative” in that he must prove he did NOT have such a motive. The attacker is also asserting knowledge he does not possess (paragraph #6 and #10 above), but diverts attention by having the attacker defend his motive. (A defense against such an attack is to ask the attacker where he learned to read minds.)

13. Another aspect of “proof” or “truth” is the concept of “necessary” and “sufficient”. One recalls the old story: “Money does not make one happy. Funny thing, but every time I hear that, it is from someone who has money.” It is easy to confuse the fact that it is (most probably) NECESSARY to have (a certain amount of) money for happiness (It is quite difficult to “be happy” if you are cold and hungry.), BUT while money is necessary for happiness, it is not sufficient. (One recalls the old Bob Hope joke. “Money doesn’t make one happy. A man with 100 million dollars isn’t any happier than a man with 50 million dollars.)

Let us review the geometric example. If it is a square, then it has four right angles. Thus, it is NECESSARY for our figure to have four right angles in order for it to be a square. It is not sufficient, since a rectangle also has four right angles. Proof that the figure has four right angles is NOT proof that the figure is a square. Proof that the figure does NOT have four right angles IS proof that the figure is NOT a square.

Another example: To be a teacher, one must graduate from college. That does not imply that any college graduate can be a teacher. College graduation is a necessary condition, it is not a sufficient condition. Other qualifications are needed—like a teaching credential (and a job).

The “flip side” is “sufficiency”. It is sufficient to prove that a figure has four right angles and two equal adjacent sides to be a square. It is not necessary. It is not “necessary” because one could just as easily prove that the figure has one right angle and four equal sides—which would also make it a square.

This writer has seen many examples of confusion with respect to necessity and sufficiency. For example, one must have a certain level of intelligence to be a doctor, is often responded to by the statement, “That’s not true. I know some very bright people that could not be a doctor.” The reader should note that there is no logical contradiction in the two statements. “High intelligence” is a necessary condition to being a doctor, it is not a sufficient condition.

As can be seen, while “the truth” has only one face, “not truth” has many faces (e.g. deception, lying, misleading, misdirection, fraud, withholding information, mistakes). So, when one claims, “I tell the truth” he may well be indulging in deception, in that not only does he tell the truth (once in a while), but he also does NOT tell the truth (once in a while). Anyone who claims to always “tell the truth” is claiming that he is capable of avoiding mistakes, misinterpretations, lies, and will never be the victim of circumstances. In some cases, they are claiming that they are omniscient and know all things, including things they cannot possibly know (like someone’s motives). P’haps I am wrong, but when someone claims to “always tell the truth”, I believe it is proper to interpret that very statement as grossly untruthful. (LBT Editor’s note: I tend to distrust those who say, “to tell the truth,” and “frankly,” because those imply the speaker is not always truthful. Being frank is optional.)

Given the above observations, one must wonder if, based upon their utterances, our political leaders and opinion formers (newspapers, talk show hosts, newscasters, etc.) understand the concept of “truth”. If they do not understand it, one must wonder about the future of our country; if they do understand it, considering their utterances, one must despair about the future of our country.

LBT: Chuckle…while we should strive never to tell lies, Tony neglected to add that the two best ways to do so are to tell the truth…but not all the truth, and to tell the truth in such a way that it will not be believed. For a pertinent modern example of the latter, if Elin had griped at Tiger for getting home late and asked why, all he had to do was roll his eyes and snort, “I spent the afternoon with one of my numerous mistresses. What did you think I was doing?!”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 at 2:17 am and is filed under Authors, Entertainment, Opinion, Politics, Tony Demaio. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.