Test for Interlocutors
for wallets and purses
I am a thinker by profession. When you ask me to get involved in a “deep” conversation, that is like asking a mechanic to look at your car or an NBA player to shoot some hoops with you. In almost all cases, I am happy to do so—indeed, called to do so. But understand that I work on “cars” and “shoot hoops” all day, every day. A respite from my professional activities, especially from teaching students the basics of correct reasoning, is important to me. I expect recovery time, especially among friends and family. It should be remembered, as well, that we are in a highly anti-intellectual culture, one that so disvalues early education that we do not even have an idea of how ignorant we are comparatively. We are extremely dumb concerning even rudimentary reasoning and yet we think we can make imperious pronouncements on anything and be Einsteins over night: everyone with their blogs, their podcasts, their echo chambers, their self-published books. Often when I am drawn into a conversation, then, there is going to be frustration. I see mistakes even in basic reasoning in the course of the conversation. It is maddening and awkward to have to correct those with whom I converse on the very basics of correct reasoning. So I will risk a bit of awkwardness upfront and insist that if you insist upon a deep conversation with me, you must show me that you have the basic skills in reasoning requisite for fruitful conversation. And so I ask that you take the following “test.”
There are 10 cases below. The numbered statements are called “premises.” The unnumbered statements, preceded by the word “therefore,” are called “conclusions.” For each case, answer the following question: is the conclusion true if—that is, assuming that—the premises above it are true? (So, for example, you would write “Yes” next to the following case: “1. p. Therefore, p.” You would write “Yes,” of course, because the conclusion must be true if the premise is true.)
1. John is a donkey only if Sam is a whoremaster 2. John is a donkey Therefore, Sam is a whoremaster 1. Either A or Q 2. If A, then Z 3. If Q, then X Therefore, either Z or X 1. If A, then Sam is a hellhound 2. A Therefore, Sam is a hellhound 1. If Napoleon was a general, then Napoleon led men into battle 2. Napoleon led men into battle Therefore, Napoleon was a general 1. All dogs are ants. 2. All ants are mammals. Therefore, all dogs are mammals. 1. John is a whoremaster Therefore, John is a whoremaster. 1. If p, then q Therefore, if not q, then not p. 1. Either A or B 2. It is not the case that A is true Therefore, B is true 1. Not p and not q 2. If x, then p 3. If o, then q Therefore, not x and not o. 1. Not x and not o 2. If x, then p 3. If o, then q Therefore, not p and not q. 1. If Hitler is a selfless philanthropist, then Hitler is a good person 2. Hitler is not a selfless philanthropist Therefore, Hitler is not a good person.
Elitist. I like!