Baconian Logic

Francis Bacon grew tired of his teachers telling him that the only conclusions that can be reached are those built upon time-honored and accepted traditions. In other words, one cannot discover any new truths. Aristotle discovered most of them centuries before. The best one could do was develop upon the propositions we already know to be true.

Bacon decided to build a new way to new discoveries with the experiment. Thus he invented the scientific process and gave us the basis of most modern science and medicine. Indeed, with it we cured epidemics (Jonas Salk) and staved off world hunger (Norman Borlaug), but with it we also built nuclear bombs (Oppenheimer, et al). For us, it is an excellent line of reasoning to follow when we write.


Simply follow the method as an outline for each sentence in a paragraph. Happy writing.

PS, most writing---including the ever-popular Jane Schaffer chunk---follows a version of Baconian logic.

Cartesian Logic

"I am. At least I think I am. Therefore, I am." Rene Descartes. Theorem. Inverse. Converse. Mirror Reverse. Or: What would happen if it was? What would happen if it wasn't? What won't happen if it was? What won't happen if it wasn't?

These are excellent lines for creating writing. They've given us many excellent directions of reasoning in all fields of study. For example, theology uses the argument: Why is there something instead of nothing? Beyond that, if you want to try and argue that the Cartesian Circle disputes Descartes, I say: Use it in your writing.

Beware, there are some constraints. If you say, "There are no absolutes!" you've just made an absolute statement. Many times atheists in their effort to disprove God disprove the existence and need for logic as well. In their view, all is random.

However, following the Cartesian dialectic can make for good writing and can be free-flowing as well. For example:

Knowledge rushes upon us. (Theorem.) If it didn't, we would return to the rural species we were in the 1800s. (Inverse.) With knowledge, we have the possibility of solving every problem. (Converse.) Without it, we will perish. (Mirror reverse.) Enjoy the ride. (Conclusion.)

A Bit of Ramean String Illustrated

This is a bit of a Ramean string illustrated. Writing is choices and following a line of choices can make for an inviting and logical path in one’s writing. Of course, evidentiary support is incumbent upon the writer along the way. These are often best constructed by thinking about one’s conclusion first and then working the path toward it. Of course, there are endless paths that writers can take. Finding the right one for one’s particular assignment is the key.

A Ramean String

Whenever one makes a choice, it doesn't end there. Each choice opens up more choices. The Ramean string is the particular path one chooses to navigate these endlessly branching choices.  Describing this navigation can be good writing---if told with thought and style.

For example, directions, if correctly given, are a perfect Ramean string. They get a person from point A to point B through many twists and turns. The starting point, journey and destination are all concrete.

A cake mix has the same quality. One could be capricious with the directions, but if you want to end up with a delicious cake---one follows them carefully.

When writing, one hopes to create a similar string of events or steps that lead the reader to a delicious conclusion.

The most famous Ramean string ever created in literature is Hamlet's "to be or not to be" speech. It starts with a question on how to be courageous. It journeys through all the twists and turns of life's pummeling. It ends with the conscience that makes cowards of us all.

Since in writing one most often deals with the marketplace of ideas, the hedges (many, most, often, etc.) should be considered. However, do not let that keep one's writing from incisive precision. Writing is about making a series of thoughtful choices that lead to the perfect conclusion.

Peter Ramus

     I am not going to argue that Petrus Ramus is one of the greatest logicians to ever live, but a cursory understanding of his method can help us with writing.

     By now, we should see how Aristotle helps. One can make bold affirmations. They can tell what is. They can then show what is not. Allowing no room for contradiction is also often helpful. Finally, one can draw conclusions when all of the propositions are truthfully laid out.

     In a court case, most of the defense is one in which the truthfulness and validity of the propositions are attacked. This is also a tool that Aristotle opens up to us writers,

     What did  Peter Ramus do? Two things: 1. he divided learning into categories so that students could more easily digest it. We have him to blame for modern subject divisions more than John Dewey. Aristotle saw knowledge more as a whole. PR gave it to us in nutshells that made it bite size and digestible. 2. he introduced binary logic as a track to be followed to a conclusion.

     Now, his style of binary logic could not be immediately translated into computers, nor was it even called that. But it did influence the pervasive theology, culture and William Shakespeare. How? By simply noting that any single choice leads to more choices (note: to be or not to be speech).

     For beginning writers, this often leads to the Either/or logical fallacy. For example, America, love it or leave it. This danger is easily fixed (America actually offers a myriad of choices, including one in which we decide to engage and make it better) with a hedge.

     What's a hedge? An acknowledgement that there is always more than just two choices.

     "Many people prefer dogs, while others like cats." is much better than "People either like cats or they like dogs." Once a person has set up the proper Ramean binary proposition with the appropriate hedge(s), they can then present their evidence for the dichotomy they've created.

     One can easily see how a reverse engineering of Ramean Logic creates the basic pancake/waffle mix that is the basis of computer programming. One can also see how his style of thought makes an easy guide for the writer who desires to open up new vistas.

Foundation

I propose examination of 4 different languages of logic:
Aristotlean
Ramean
Cartesian
Baconian

This is certainly not an exhaustive examination of logic, but merely fleshing out a few tools to be used by writers.

The foundation of traditional logic was laid out by Aristotle.

The easiest way to think about this as a writer is that one starts out a thought, develops it and then brings it to a conclusion. If writers could keep this in mind, the beginning, middle and end of a thing, most writing would be comprehensible. Aristotle talks about this in his work Poetics.

More on this in a later post. What I promised is insight into the way we think. According to Aristotle's proponents, these suppositions were first collected in a work that his early followers put together from his writings: The Organon.

To boil it down, according to this there are four basic types of logic:
1. Affirmation
2. Non-contradiction
3. Excluded middle
4. Sufficient reason

Affirmation: a thing is what it is. Most sentences and statements carry this quality: they are an attempt to state the way things are. Algebraically we can express this as A=A.

Non-contradiction: a thing is not what it is not. We often define or give further clarity to things by showing what they are not. Algebra: A≠B (a is not equal to b).

Excluded middle: given two contradictory statements, at least one is false. Algebra: If A≠B, then C=A or C=B or C=neither. (Lesson for writers: avoid contradiction). Good writers point out this missing middle.

Sufficient Reason: there must be (enough) proof that sufficiently follows the presuppositions, Algebra: X=Y, Y=Z, therefore, X=Z. This is the syllogism. Many people think it is the basis of thought. It is certainly useful in writing.

The key is to begin to see how to carefully and clearly use these tools in the things we write.

Logic

It's one thing to say, "There are no rules," But look at all the rules I'm following to make that statement. I assume the reader understands grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and thought.

This last thing, thought, the innate human ability (conscious thinking), is what writing translates into a tangible form.

For example, a popular statement for at least the last 50 years of the post-modern era is: "There are no absolutes." I marvel at the audacity of that statement and the relief it has brought to millions. However, one must note that in their determined effort to grasp the elusiveness of absolutes, they have found it necessary to make the statement absolutely. In other words, 'there are no absolutes' is an absolute statement.

The truth is that there are absolutes and there are gray areas. They coexist. In order to work in one (the grays), one must know the boundaries of the others (absolutes).

How do I know there are absolutes? You're either alive or you are dead. How do I know there are gray areas? Sometimes you're asleep, or in a coma, or on your way out on a death bed, or in your mother's womb not yet born, or recovering from a near death experience.

Writers have to work with both absolutes and the gray areas human beings constantly encounter. They need the facts and the style and ongoing life that those facts are worked out in.

One last thing, it is popular to communicate these days by breaking the rules. It is important to understand that in order to write, one must understand the rules before they can break them in the form of effective written communication.

The next few blogs will give a cursory look and understanding of the logic we humans use.

l(a

le
af
fa

ll

s)
one
l

iness

             e e cummings

Good Thinking, Good Writing

Diachronic and Synchronic Diachronic and Synchronic are two logics of order, meaning and expression which oppose and/or complement one another. Diachronic: the sequential logic of a road Synchronic: the all-at-once logic of a pool Diachronic Synchronic Process Structure "What Comes After What" "What Goes With What" Cause and Effect Order Associative Order (non-sequential) Meaning from Plot, Sequence Meaning from Proximity, Contrast and Similarity Anticipation and Satisfaction Connections and Patterns Like a road you're traveling down Like a pool of people and objects you climb into

New Rules

In the old days, people would say one needed several elements to make writing work: grammar, vocabulary, thought, expression, a decisive objective and clarity. The New School points to only one goal: effective communication. Under the New Rules, one may break the laws of grammar, vocabulary, thought, expression, objectives, and clarity if their ideas are effectively communicated. This works in the world at large, but needs permission granted by  the professor if utilized in the academic arena. Don't go trying a poignant and cogent haiku en lieu of a 30 page researched and annotated paper without permission. This comes back to the basic first element to writing anything: know your audience (or teacher as the case may be).