How to increase logical correctness?

[tatsumaru]

I've noticed that when I write essays and long posts I am often prone to involuntary logical fallacies.
These are not some sort of demagoguery but simply me connecting dots that are not really related.
Saying that y arises out of x when maybe it's not true.

How can I increase my logical intelligence in order to decrease the amount of logical fallacies that I generate with my content?

Thanks.

[LastThursday]

That's the beauty of logical reasoning any X can be connected to any Y. X and Y can be anything you like. All logical thinking requires a bunch of definitions (propositions) from which to build from. For example I could try and connect "water" and "memory". My proposition is that "water has memory". From there I can logically argue all sorts of conclusions: "water remembers if its been badly treated". The proposition itself doesn't have to be true in any sense. What is a fallacy is arguing something which doesn't logically arise from the definitions: "water remembers your birthday".

What's needed is clarity at all times. Each chain of reasoning needs to be consistent with the original propositions. That's why any logical argument should start by outlining definitions. Otherwise there's no base for your conclusions. For every new thing that's pulled into the essay, there needs to be a clear definition for it.  It may seem obvious what a thing means to you, but it probably isn't to the reader.  It's very easy to think for example that everyone knows what God means, and then start saying strange things like "you are God because X, Y and Z", nope, you have to define God first and then go from there.

Unfortunately, language allows you to refer to things that haven't been described already. Especially avoid the use of referring words in propositions. For example: "it is good to be happy". What does "it" refer to here? Better would be "People like to be happy". Or deleted words: "love is everything", whose love? And what does "everything" refer to here? You get the picture.

The ultimate fallacy is circular reasoning, whereby the definition refers to itself: you are God, God is you. You can argue from circular reasoning, but the conclusions are not based on anything solid. Even worse you could have a proposition that is a logical inconsistency: this statement is false.

 

[tatsumaru]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

That's the beauty of logical reasoning any X can be connected to any Y. X and Y can be anything you like. All logical thinking requires a bunch of definitions (propositions) from which to build from. For example I could try and connect "water" and "memory". My proposition is that "water has memory". From there I can logically argue all sorts of conclusions: "water remembers if its been badly treated". The proposition itself doesn't have to be true in any sense. What is a fallacy is arguing something which doesn't logically arise from the definitions: "water remembers your birthday".

What's needed is clarity at all times. Each chain of reasoning needs to be consistent with the original propositions. That's why any logical argument should start by outlining definitions. Otherwise there's no base for your conclusions. For every new thing that's pulled into the essay, there needs to be a clear definition for it.  It may seem obvious what a thing means to you, but it probably isn't to the reader.  It's very easy to think for example that everyone knows what God means, and then start saying strange things like "you are God because X, Y and Z", nope, you have to define God first and then go from there.

Unfortunately, language allows you to refer to things that haven't been described already. Especially avoid the use of referring words in propositions. For example: "it is good to be happy". What does "it" refer to here? Better would be "People like to be happy". Or deleted words: "love is everything", whose love? And what does "everything" refer to here? You get the picture.

The ultimate fallacy is circular reasoning, whereby the definition refers to itself: you are God, God is you. You can argue from circular reasoning, but the conclusions are not based on anything solid. Even worse you could have a proposition that is a logical inconsistency: this statement is false.

That was quite helpful, thank you. I guess if I just become more deliberate in applying consistency I will teach myself out of saying random or unclear BS. Using my brain is so much work...

[LastThursday]

Yes, that and and just being aware of how other people are logically inconsistent. I would argue that's more useful, because it's stops you being duped by others' BS.