Bad Logic
Let’s start off by recapping. Yi Zhongtian, a renowned literature professor known for his knowledge in Chinese Aesthetics and history, recently published an article in Southern Weekly, in which he chartered a course for China to become a “cultural giant”.
Although his lectures in the Three Kingdoms era never impressed me much, I am personally fond of Mr. Yi’s outspoken manner, and it’s for this reason alone that I read his article. Afterwards, I was deeply offended by his poorly thought out premise, fallacious logic, and his pedantic and grandiose attitude.
Thus, I wrote a rebuttal, where I laid out my counter argument. It is my belief that the term culture is extremely vague and difficult to define; in addition, throughout history, people have defined and judged cultures differently, and even today different regions have different standards. Therefore, any argument made in regard to what makes good culture is purely subjective and nothing more than personal opinion. With such a shaking foundation, it was already difficult for one to make a solid argument. But even with that in mind, Mr. Yi’s writing is still spectacularly bad, with ill defined terms, poorly researched supporting evidence, and virtually no logic. It was simply bad writing and absent mindedness disguised as a thoughtful piece, with its entire credibility deriving from Mr. Yi’s popularity and prestige.
However, my piece was derided by a reader, who argues that Mr. Yi is appreciated for his frank attitude. Furthermore, my argument is nothing more than nitpicking, based solely on the fact that Mr. Yi dismissed the culture of the United States. Later, additional argument was added: it was argued that my criticism of Mr. Yi’s argument was non-constructive, and Mr. Yi, even if his arguments were not as solid as he’d like them to be, as still building toward an end.
So this is my reply to this person, because I am incredulous there such barbaric argument could possibly be forwarded by a member of China’s educated class.
I will start by reputing the first argument, that Mr. Yi is frank. This argument is exactly as non sequitur as Mr. Yi’s original article, because it reasons that because of Mr. Yi’s integrity (of which there is only populist support, but no serious discussion or logical argument, but that’s another topic, so let’s assume Mr. Yi is indeed an honorable citizen), what he says must be important and right.
I disagree. A person’s standing in the community is not related to his intellectual argument. Therefore, reversely, to attach his argument is not attacking the person’s integrity. If Mother Teresa argues that men can fly, I would respectively disagree, but it doesn’t diminish her standing as a Saint. If Hitler put forth a coherent intellectual question, I’d be happy to look over it, instead of shunning him because he killed millions. To bring a person’s integrity and appeal to the masses in the debate does nothing to further your counter argument, and it only exposes the shallowness of your intellect and the messiness of your mind.
Secondly, I disagree with the objection that I was basing my argument solely on the omission of the U.S. as a “cultural giant”. Recall that my argument was two-fold, that Mr. Yi’s premise is wrong and that his internal logic is full of faults. I spent most of the time arguing the premise aspects, because without correct axioms, even proper logic leads to false conclusions. The U.S. then is merely used to falsify Mr. Yi’s argument within his own framework, in that it is extremely biased (for example, simply because he fails to appreciate musicals doesn’t mean musicals have no cultural value), poorly researched (Confucius and Buddha were indeed active promoters of their ideas), and ill defined (Kant is a cultural icon, but not John Dewey). Therefore, to focus on the U.S. example but to miss the overall picture could either be attributed to the person’s lack of intellectual depth or my argument being unclear and muddled, based on the person’s track record, I’d like to think it’s the former.
Because my counter arguments were effective, the person then resorts to a third argument outside of the box: it is conceded, for the sake of argument, and Mr. Yi put forth a bad argument; but, to this person, he is still being more constructive than a person picking apart his argument.
This is perhaps the most poorly thought out argument of the three, which is hard to believe because it’s hard to think a literate person could sink to such depth. Yet still, it is worthy of a response. Because, like Mr. Yi, the person introduces a term that was ill defined in itself: constructive.
What does constructive mean? I’d like to think an argument could be constructive in two senses. On one hand, an argument could be constructive in a theoretical sense, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas’ incorporation of Aristotelian system into Christianity. In this sense, the argument may not have practical value, but it furthers learning. On the other hand, constructive could imply that the argument is making a difference in the real world. (This argument may be consequentialist, which is logical fallible, but let’s assume, for the sake of this argument that it is true). In this sense, an argument is constructive when it changes the world for the better, such as John Locke’s theory of social contract, which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence. (Of course, things are rarely so black and white; for example, to spend 362 pages arguing why 1+1=2 may seem gratuitous, but 50 years later it led to the advent of computers. But again, for the sake of argument, let’s put it aside for a moment).
Either way, it is hard to fathom how a bad argument could benefit either of these two aspects. How does a bad argument and poorly researched piece add to the intellectual reservoir of human knowledge? Yet such might not be the worst result of such bad writing. It would surely be a bigger tragedy if such erroneous argument were really put into practice. The world is full of such examples, where good intentions are led astray by ignorance (think the Great Leap Forward). In addition, to argue Mr. Yi’s article is constructive in the fact that it inspires debate is also pure non-sense as well. Starting a debate in of itself is not a constructive end, because the killing of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. also sparked debate, but no one would argue assassinations of such figures are constructive.
Indeed, it is my belief that bad argument is destructive that I wrote my initial rejection of Mr. Yi’s article. Irrationality is a slippery slope. Today it may be merely the waste of public forum and ink, but if one persists down the path of Mr. Yi and his supporters, their sloppy thinking would leads to infinitely more waste of precious resources, and, at its worst, mayhem. To think rationally is the only way out, which is why such is my disappointment to hear one put forth such poorly reasoned response to my arguments. To know such (dare I say it) dimly lit being exists even among the most well read of us, it’s disheartening.
Although his lectures in the Three Kingdoms era never impressed me much, I am personally fond of Mr. Yi’s outspoken manner, and it’s for this reason alone that I read his article. Afterwards, I was deeply offended by his poorly thought out premise, fallacious logic, and his pedantic and grandiose attitude.
Thus, I wrote a rebuttal, where I laid out my counter argument. It is my belief that the term culture is extremely vague and difficult to define; in addition, throughout history, people have defined and judged cultures differently, and even today different regions have different standards. Therefore, any argument made in regard to what makes good culture is purely subjective and nothing more than personal opinion. With such a shaking foundation, it was already difficult for one to make a solid argument. But even with that in mind, Mr. Yi’s writing is still spectacularly bad, with ill defined terms, poorly researched supporting evidence, and virtually no logic. It was simply bad writing and absent mindedness disguised as a thoughtful piece, with its entire credibility deriving from Mr. Yi’s popularity and prestige.
However, my piece was derided by a reader, who argues that Mr. Yi is appreciated for his frank attitude. Furthermore, my argument is nothing more than nitpicking, based solely on the fact that Mr. Yi dismissed the culture of the United States. Later, additional argument was added: it was argued that my criticism of Mr. Yi’s argument was non-constructive, and Mr. Yi, even if his arguments were not as solid as he’d like them to be, as still building toward an end.
So this is my reply to this person, because I am incredulous there such barbaric argument could possibly be forwarded by a member of China’s educated class.
I will start by reputing the first argument, that Mr. Yi is frank. This argument is exactly as non sequitur as Mr. Yi’s original article, because it reasons that because of Mr. Yi’s integrity (of which there is only populist support, but no serious discussion or logical argument, but that’s another topic, so let’s assume Mr. Yi is indeed an honorable citizen), what he says must be important and right.
I disagree. A person’s standing in the community is not related to his intellectual argument. Therefore, reversely, to attach his argument is not attacking the person’s integrity. If Mother Teresa argues that men can fly, I would respectively disagree, but it doesn’t diminish her standing as a Saint. If Hitler put forth a coherent intellectual question, I’d be happy to look over it, instead of shunning him because he killed millions. To bring a person’s integrity and appeal to the masses in the debate does nothing to further your counter argument, and it only exposes the shallowness of your intellect and the messiness of your mind.
Secondly, I disagree with the objection that I was basing my argument solely on the omission of the U.S. as a “cultural giant”. Recall that my argument was two-fold, that Mr. Yi’s premise is wrong and that his internal logic is full of faults. I spent most of the time arguing the premise aspects, because without correct axioms, even proper logic leads to false conclusions. The U.S. then is merely used to falsify Mr. Yi’s argument within his own framework, in that it is extremely biased (for example, simply because he fails to appreciate musicals doesn’t mean musicals have no cultural value), poorly researched (Confucius and Buddha were indeed active promoters of their ideas), and ill defined (Kant is a cultural icon, but not John Dewey). Therefore, to focus on the U.S. example but to miss the overall picture could either be attributed to the person’s lack of intellectual depth or my argument being unclear and muddled, based on the person’s track record, I’d like to think it’s the former.
Because my counter arguments were effective, the person then resorts to a third argument outside of the box: it is conceded, for the sake of argument, and Mr. Yi put forth a bad argument; but, to this person, he is still being more constructive than a person picking apart his argument.
This is perhaps the most poorly thought out argument of the three, which is hard to believe because it’s hard to think a literate person could sink to such depth. Yet still, it is worthy of a response. Because, like Mr. Yi, the person introduces a term that was ill defined in itself: constructive.
What does constructive mean? I’d like to think an argument could be constructive in two senses. On one hand, an argument could be constructive in a theoretical sense, for example, St. Thomas Aquinas’ incorporation of Aristotelian system into Christianity. In this sense, the argument may not have practical value, but it furthers learning. On the other hand, constructive could imply that the argument is making a difference in the real world. (This argument may be consequentialist, which is logical fallible, but let’s assume, for the sake of this argument that it is true). In this sense, an argument is constructive when it changes the world for the better, such as John Locke’s theory of social contract, which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence. (Of course, things are rarely so black and white; for example, to spend 362 pages arguing why 1+1=2 may seem gratuitous, but 50 years later it led to the advent of computers. But again, for the sake of argument, let’s put it aside for a moment).
Either way, it is hard to fathom how a bad argument could benefit either of these two aspects. How does a bad argument and poorly researched piece add to the intellectual reservoir of human knowledge? Yet such might not be the worst result of such bad writing. It would surely be a bigger tragedy if such erroneous argument were really put into practice. The world is full of such examples, where good intentions are led astray by ignorance (think the Great Leap Forward). In addition, to argue Mr. Yi’s article is constructive in the fact that it inspires debate is also pure non-sense as well. Starting a debate in of itself is not a constructive end, because the killing of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. also sparked debate, but no one would argue assassinations of such figures are constructive.
Indeed, it is my belief that bad argument is destructive that I wrote my initial rejection of Mr. Yi’s article. Irrationality is a slippery slope. Today it may be merely the waste of public forum and ink, but if one persists down the path of Mr. Yi and his supporters, their sloppy thinking would leads to infinitely more waste of precious resources, and, at its worst, mayhem. To think rationally is the only way out, which is why such is my disappointment to hear one put forth such poorly reasoned response to my arguments. To know such (dare I say it) dimly lit being exists even among the most well read of us, it’s disheartening.
