Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Warning: Satire! If you are a beliver in the Roman Inquisition, do not read!

As Bizzell and Herzberg point out, in 1554, Thomas Wilson, a Protestant, fled a now Catholic England under Mary Tudor, and arrived in Padua, Italy. He was arrested and tortured by the Roman Inquisition, who claimed that his logic and rhetoric books were heretical. Here is a transcript (completely fabricated):

Grand Inquisitor: Question the first: What meaneth this title, "The Rule of Reason?" Doth it mean that the universe is ruled by reason, that reason is the sovereign of us all? or Dost thou hereby mean to supplant the rules that our God, the Lord Jesus, gave to us in his scripture?
Wilson (arms in iron cuffs, mouth bleeding): Neither, actually, it purporteth only to lay out the rules whereby one might use reason to...
Grand Inquisitor: ...to do the work of the devil?
Wilson: No, to construct arguments as well as to judge the arguments of others.
Grand Inquisitor: What are these rules?
Wilson: The most common rule is that an argument must be valid.
Grand Inquisitor: Which meaneth that it must be true?
Wilson: No, it meaneth only that the argument be well-formed. Indeed, two false propositions can be put together to form an argument that is valid.
Grand Inquisitor: How is this possible!
Wilson: For example: Let us assume the following: Proposition the first: Given, All ducks beeth squirrels. Proposition the second: Given, Any lizard beeth a duck.
Grand Inquisitor: False! No ducks be squirrels and no lizards be ducks! (Strikes him on the face with a whip.)
Wilson: Ouch. Aye, but even so...We conclude from these two statements, given, false though they be, that any lizard, since that given he be a duck and since that given all ducks beeth squireels, yea, therefore, that any said lizard beeth also a squirrel.
Grand Inquisitor: And thou dost call this false argument "valid"!
Wilson: Aye, marry, that do I. My rule of reason hath made it so.
Grand Inquisitor: Therefore dost thou claim to be able to use thy rule of reason and thereby to take two false statements...
Wilson: Aye.
Grand Inquisitor: And by means of these two ingredients, subject to your rule of reason, to yield a third statement...
Wilson: Aye.
Grand Inquisitor: and that this third statement, now rendered and pulled forth from your concoction, like to an alchemist pulling forth gold from a vat containing theretofore only quicksilver and lead, that beeth not true yet that beeth "valid."
Wilson: Aye.
Grand Inquisitor: Then do I liken this art, of taking two false statements and conjuring from them a third, "valid" statement, to be the work of the devil (slaps him on the face with the whip from the left side) and do charge you, as practitioner of this "rule of reason" (slaps him on the face with the whip from the right side) to be a minion of Satan. (slaps him on the face with the whip...twice, once from each direction)
Wilson: (pause)...Ow.

1 comment:

Hannah said...

I meant to comment on this post a long time ago. . . I was quite intrigued and amused at the same time. I wish I were that creative. What a great way to illustrate the difference between "true" and "valid" arguments--and the way people have historically misunderstood the difference. This "transcript" also proves what you were saying in class the other day, that logic is basically a game or set of rules and is nearly independent of language.