Selective Logic

I try to be open-minded. There are a lot of times when I will accept different approaches to answer a question that result in different answers. What I don’t handle very well is when one person engages in contradictory approaches to logic. That might be a little confusing, so let me try to explain with an example.

Let me start with global warming. There are some people who use current conditions to prove or disprove global warming while others feel that current conditions could be an anomaly. I personally feel that a single day shouldn’t be emphasized too much for the overall climate, but I can at least understand that the current weather is influenced by the climate. The problem isn’t that people disagree. The problem is that you frequently find one person who changes their views regarding the relevance of current conditions depending on how they relate to their views. This seems to be far more common in the so-called “global warming deniers.” They brush off every day of record heat as anomalous and insist that every cooler-than-average day disproves global warming.

I call this, “selective logic.” The idea behind selective logic is that people change their logical approach in order to support beliefs that they already maintain.

I actually have another good example. Yes, it does relate to the schools. There are a lot of people who base their logic on what makes the schools and teachers look good. For example, standardized testing takes away from curriculum in favor of “teaching to the test.” Teachers love pointing out other test results to prove it.

Another schooling-related issue: Who is responsible for what a student is learning? If a student fails to learn, the teacher shouldn’t be held responsible for the student’s failures. According to the same people, “If you can read this, thank your teacher.” I’m sorry, but if you can read this, thank yourself. I may feel that teachers can provide an obstacle, but at least I’m consistent that learning is ultimately the responsibility of the learner.