Thinking is something you need to learn and then practice throughout your life to stay in shape. The foundation of thinking lies in three laws of formal logic. “Formal” means that we are talking specifically about the structure of reasoning, not its content.
Each of us is convinced at any moment that we think logically. But this is not true. Sometimes we make mistakes in constructing our reasoning. Usually, this happens under the influence of strong emotions, fatigue, or simple inattentiveness. Such mistakes are dangerous because of the consequences of the decisions made based on them. Faulty decisions are the result of faulty reasoning.
Below are the three basic laws of logic. Yes, there are only three. At first glance, they are very simple, and this is indeed the case. Nevertheless, they are often violated.
1. The Law of Identity
Every thought must be identical (equal) to itself.
This is a requirement for unambiguity and precision in statements. Words must not be confused, creating ambiguity, nor should concepts be substituted.
Example: "The students attended the lecture."
How should this statement be understood: did they listen attentively, or did they let it go in one ear and out the other? There should be no room for different interpretations — this is the requirement of identity.
Deliberate violation of the law of identity is called “sophism” — verbal juggling to justify any, even the most ridiculous, idea. In common parlance, this is called “stretching the owl over the globe.” Populists and propagandists especially love this trick.
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction
It is impossible to simultaneously assert and deny the same idea.
For example: "Our indicators are high but also low." It would seem that only a madman could spout such nonsense, so why even make a law out of it? A law is necessary because there is a nuance.
If a contradiction is contained in a single sentence, this is called a contact (adjacent) contradiction, and such a thing is truly characteristic only of the insane. But if you place the contradiction across several paragraphs, then you create a distant (non-adjacent) contradiction, and anyone can fall into this. Especially some politicians: "We always work within the law… But right now, we don’t have time for laws."
3. The Law of the Excluded Middle
Out of two categorically opposite statements, one must necessarily be true.
Categorically opposite statements are called contradictory — they cannot have anything intermediate between them. For example: "The patient is alive" or "The patient is dead" — there is no third option. The truth of one statement necessarily means the falsehood of the other, and vice versa.
BUT there is a nuance again! Besides contradictory statements, there are also contrary statements to which the Law of the Excluded Middle does not apply. Between such statements, there can be something intermediate — a third option that makes both statements false. For example: between "he is tall" and "he is short," the truth may be "he is of average height."
By substituting contradictory logic with contrariness or vice versa, sophists confuse their interlocutors. In other words, they manipulate.
Example 1: "So, are you with us or against us?!" This is a demand to perceive a contrary statement as contradictory.
Example 2: "Is it a special operation or a war? Well, it's not so clear-cut here." Here the sophist, on the contrary, presents a contradictory statement as contrary. Because there is no third option.
The trick is not to confuse contradiction with contrariness yourself and not let others do so. In a discussion, always ask yourself: is there something third in the subject of your dispute?
Now for a bonus 4th law. This one is not about form but about content. Because it is possible to construct an absolutely correct statement in form (“All zorks love to flib. Finkus is a zork. Therefore, Finkus loves to flib.”) that has no meaning. But we strive to think precisely to derive meaningful results.
4. The Law of Sufficient Reason
Nothing can be considered true without sufficient reason.
Example: "You have a contract with a lawyer, which means you planned to break the law." Logical? Well, it seems so… However, the reason for signing a contract with a lawyer might be, for instance, fear of unlawful criminal prosecution. Or perhaps you simply enjoy signing contracts.
This law is not entirely about logic because it is impossible to clearly define what constitutes “sufficient reason.” But it is necessary since it somewhat determines common sense. We must strive to follow it; otherwise, thinking and dialogue will turn into chaos and lose their practical value.
Moreover, the statement "The criminal committed X because he confessed to it himself" is also not sufficiently substantiated. Because X might have confessed under torture or been mentally unfit. Guilt must be proven by an investigation that provides sufficient grounds for this.
The principle of the presumption of innocence is a consequence of Law #4.
Unfortunately, there is no administrative responsibility for violating the laws of formal logic, although sometimes it would be very helpful… Therefore, adherence to these laws is the personal responsibility of each individual. Their violation does not lead to the same obvious consequences as violating the laws of physics, but nevertheless, the consequences are inevitable.
Thinking well or haphazardly is, in the end, your choice.
