|
Passages Of The Day |
|
| |
| Errors in thinking(ii) |
We can now look at some of the major errors in thinking. It can be seen that very few of them can be called logical errors unless one extends the meaning of the word 'logic' to mean all effective thinking, in which case any deficiency is automatically an error in logic. Such an extension would make the word useless.
Partialism
This is by far the major error in thinking and it is a pure error of perception. It is an inadequacy or insufficiency of perception. The thinker is looking at only part of the situation and basing his argument on that part. It is an error that is consistently and deliberately used by politicians or by anyone else who has to make a point. Indeed it is the easiest way to make a point, since by carefully choosing an area one can build a logically consistent argument and then rely on the logic of that argument to carry the point.
A trade-union leader insists that his men need a large wage rise to cope with the rising cost of living. His argument is correct when looked at in terms of his men and the cost of living. But on a larger scale the wage rise will be paralleled elsewhere and will itself lead to a further rise in the cost of living. The manufacturer insists that his selling price must be four times the cost of the materials that go to make up the item. So if the price of raw materials increases, his selling price and profits increase proportionately, although his other costs have not increased. He has chosen to look at his usual pricing procedure, not at the change in raw-material costs or the effects of his price increase.
Often the partialism is intentional. Sometimes it may be very difficult to detect unless one knows the whole situation. It may be absolutely impossible to detect unless one knows the whole situation. It may be absolutely impossible to detect by internal examination of the argument. At other times the partialism is unintentional and is based on inadequate information. If the information is equally inadequate all round, then the 'error' will never be detected.
A police force adopts some new procedures. The following year there is a rise in the crime rate of 12 per cent. It is argued that since the measures were intended to bring down the crime rate the measures have been a failure. This seems logically consistent. But it involves partialism and inadequate perception. We should like to know what the rise in crime rate was the previous year. We find that it was a mere 8 per cent. So it seems that the new measures have been followed by an even steeper increase. Surely they must be ineffective? But do we know what the rise in crime rate would have been without the measures? It might have been 24 per cent. Do we know what has been happening in other comparable countries? |
-----
Passage taken from: "Teaching Thinking" by Edward de Bono, ISBN 0-14-013785-8 Copyright © European Services Ltd, 1976
|
|
|
