Perverse logic
The famous British philosopher, mathematician, and author, the Nobel Prize winner, Bertrand Russell was known for his acrimonious wit and sharp observations. One of his oft-quoted pronouncements - when is taken out of context - is a persistent cause of embarrassment to math educators and mathematicians.
... mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
The background for the maxim is the essence of the modern axiomatic approach in foundations of mathematics. Instead of defining point as That which has no part (Euclid Elements, Book I), mathematicians leave the notion of the point undefined, and let the concept of the point emerge from the axioms and subsequent usage.
Mathematicians do not shrink from dealing with unknown or even nonexistent entities. "Let's assume ..." is a standard beginning for proofs by contradiction - reductio ad absurdum. Assume that √2 is rational and see where it leads us ... This attitude is a pretty standard norm among mathematicans. In the case of √2, the power of logic forces them to confess: our assumption was wrong so that √2 is irrational. Honesty is valued in mathematics.
Not so in politics. The politicians and political pundits - like mathematicians - do not shrink from dealing with nonexistent objects. Unlike mathematicians, they may build an argument starting with, say, an event that never took place, and glide over to building a theory according to their convictions.
As an example, the well known publicist Patrick Seale in a discussion on the situation in Syria published in Guardian speculates:
By all accounts, hardliners inside the regime have now won the debate with reformers, if indeed debate there was.
An implicit and unquestioned assumption here is that in the Syrian government there are two kinds of people: reformers and hardliners.
The protesters have in turn hardened their stance as a result of the regime's harsh response.
which helps seal the impression that should the reformers won the debate within the government, the protester would have behave differently. Who could now question the presence of the reformers in the Syrian government?
And later, talking of the current Syrian president, Bashar Asad,
It seems clear that in his speech on 30 March – his only public intervention so far – the president missed a historic opportunity to assert his leadership and pull things back from the brink. Had he announced long overdue measures ...
again raising the specter of possibility that Asad may have been a reformer and, as such, may have considered instituting the overdue reforms. This is against all the logic of the events on the ground. How difficult is to stop these speculations and simply admit that the regime in Syria - without exception - is a murderous clique of power usurpers, whose only interest is in perpetuating their grab on power in the country?
Mathematicians make a very good use of nonexistent objects, proving in particular their nonexistence. Political pundits, on the other hand, fill their columns with bare speculations built on false assumptions and misinterpretation of events on the ground.
No related posts.