[HN Gopher] Kettle Logic
___________________________________________________________________
Kettle Logic
Author : secondary
Score : 112 points
Date : 2022-03-10 18:23 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (en.wikipedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (en.wikipedia.org)
| infini8 wrote:
| So this is the strategy the UK government has been using for the
| last few years.
| rob_c wrote:
| Sadly not just the uk, but yes the blind adoration of the
| "unrefutable glory of report9" is somewhat sickening...
| liotier wrote:
| Sounds very Russian too !
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| Not coincidentally.
| j_4 wrote:
| In Polish we have this short and sweet phrase "dawno i nieprawda"
| - "a long time ago and not true". In my experience, obligatorily
| uttered when a friend is sharing an embarassing story about you.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's interesting that one implicitly assumes that there's an AND
| between the arguments. Assuming an OR would remove the apparent
| inconsistency. :)
| prvc wrote:
| Is such a battery of arguments permissible in legal contexts,
| e.g. in a criminal defense?
| evilotto wrote:
| It was literally Kim Potter's defense. Shooting was an accident
| and untentional, but she was within her rights to use deadly
| force.
| wnoise wrote:
| Those aren't actually contradictory, but independent.
| fmihaila wrote:
| These two assertions ('shooting was an accident...' and 'she
| was within her rights...') are not inherently contradictory,
| though. That's what's remarkable about Kettle Logic: genuine
| contradictions can be employed in a proof in a convincing
| (and not necessarily invalid) manner. The above can be
| orthogonal or complementary assertions, but they are not
| contradictory.
| munchbunny wrote:
| That's not kettle logic, that's a mode of legal argumentation
| that deals with boolean "and" constructions of a law.
|
| If some charge requires both [A] and [B] for the accused to
| be guilty, then this argument is that it's neither [A] nor
| [B], but the defendant is innocent if they can prove either
| half of the argument, since the condition is "[A] and [B]",
| not "[A] or [B]".
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| That brings up a question. If someone were within their
| rights to use deadly force, would they only be acquitted if
| they used it intentionally?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Whether they were within their rights would only come into
| play if they had the requisite mental state (intent,
| recklessness, etc., as for the crime charged) in the first
| place.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Interesting. That means that in some cases you have to
| argue that you killed someone intentionally to avoid
| being convicted.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > That means that in some cases you have to argue that
| you killed someone intentionally to avoid being convicted
|
| No, you don't.
|
| It's just if you are charged with an offense that
| requires intent, the question of self-defense (or any
| other excuse) is moot if the prosecutor can't prove
| intent beyond a reasonable doubt in the first place.
|
| If you are charged with an offense that doesn't require
| intent, like involuntary manslaughter, you don't have to
| argue intent to kill to use self-defense as an excuse.
|
| And even of you are charged with an intent crime, you
| don't need to grant intent to argue self-defense.
| yellowstuff wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading
|
| Using multiple logically inconsistent defenses is generally
| allowed in the US.
| [deleted]
| brimble wrote:
| When you think about it, it'd really suck to be failing to
| prove what _is in fact your complete innocence_ and _not_ be
| able to advance other defenses that could at least get you a
| reduced sentence (or even acquitted--correct outcome, wrong
| reason).
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| The wikipedia article lists "My dog was tied up and I don't
| own a dog", which is on the face of it contradictory - But
| there can easily be legal nuance. For example, if I'm
| acting as a foster home or running a kennel, I can
| simultaneously advance evidence that "My dog" was tied up,
| while also advocating for lack of liability because "It's
| not my dog".
|
| On the other hand, I've seen a ton of "I didn't do x, and
| even if I did do X it was acceptable because Y" where Y was
| the worse crime... that somehow still succeeded as a
| defense. Thankfully not in a court of law, but public
| opinion is weird.
| brey wrote:
| 'permissible' isn't quite the point ... if it makes the jury
| think you're lying, maybe it isn't the best strategy.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| 1. The jury should not base their decision on their belief
| whether either side is lying.
|
| 2. The defence is expected to lie, and if the prosecution
| cannot prove that every single one of the defence's arguments
| are lies, then the jury cannot convict beyond reasonable
| doubt.
|
| 3. The jury should assume that the prosecution is lying by
| default, and acquit if the prosecution does not convince them
| otherwise.
| gpm wrote:
| > 2. The defence is expected to lie
|
| The defence is expressly prohibited from lying. Lawyers
| have a so called duty of candor [1] outlining this.
| Defendants testify under oath to make this clear to them.
| Defence attorneys must disclose to the court if their
| client lies to the court (and they can't convince their
| client to voluntarily disclose it instead) [2].
|
| That doesn't mean people are expected to take defendants at
| their word during trial, juries are allowed to decide they
| think that someone was lying, but they aren't expected to
| lie.
|
| [1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/duty-of-candor/
|
| [2] https://www.eiglarshlaw.com/when-clients-liewhat-must-
| you-do...
| duxup wrote:
| The jury can decide that any given testimony is a lie and
| weight it accordingly.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Defense theories are not testimony and, ideally, should
| not be considered in the evaluation of testimony.
|
| (In practice, humans don't consistently compartmentalize
| well enough to reliably avoid this, though.)
| duxup wrote:
| "defense theories" are going to have evidence associated
| with them. At that point my point applies.
| prvc wrote:
| Certainly, but is there some other penalty for what might be
| construed as contemptuous and disreputable behavior?
| thehappypm wrote:
| It might be perjury
| [deleted]
| golemotron wrote:
| It's only inconsistent if you use "and" rather than "or."
| aidenn0 wrote:
| My dad ran into something similar while on a Jury. It was for
| indecent exposure
|
| Both sides agreed that the man was in the car with his pants
| down (defense claimed defendant was looking for a tick on his
| leg). The defense argued that with the window tinting on the
| car window, it was not possible to see into the car.
|
| My dad's takeaway from this was that one of these must be true:
|
| 1. Someone coincidentally accused someone of having their pants
| down without being able to see them, and happened to be right
|
| 2. The window was rolled down
|
| 3. The defense is presenting false evidence
| ModernMech wrote:
| > That he had returned the kettle undamaged. That it was already
| damaged when he borrowed it. That he had never borrowed it in the
| first place
|
| This is the logic of a sociopath.
|
| I didn't hurt you, but if I did it wasn't that bad, and if it was
| that bad you deserved it.
| a_shovel wrote:
| It seems that this is a sort of "dual" to what's called "Argument
| in the alternative" [1], which I've seen confused for kettle
| logic more often than I've seen kettle logic used itself.
|
| It's a subtle distinction. Argument in the alternative considers
| multiple different possibilities as hypotheticals in order to
| rule them all out, but isn't that kind of what kettle logic does
| as well? Can a kettle logic argument be easily rephrased into an
| argument in the alternative?
|
| I feel like there's a difference between them that's more than
| just whether the argument is true/valid or not, but I can't quite
| put it into words.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
| Jtsummers wrote:
| The "even if" bit from your link is helpful to consider.
|
| Kettle logic:
|
| 1. I wasn't there.
|
| 2. I was there but had no motive.
|
| 3. I was there, had motive, but had no means.
|
| Argument in the alternative:
|
| 1. I wasn't there.
|
| 2. Even if I was there, I had no motive.
|
| 3. Even if I was there and had motive, I had no means.
|
| The first makes three conflicting statements. The second makes
| 3 consecutive arguments: I have an alibi, but if you don't
| believe my alibi, I still had no motive, and if you don't
| believe my alibi and that I lacked motive, I had no means.
| bo1024 wrote:
| I think it's even better if the burden of proof is placed on
| the prosecution (as it should be):
|
| 1. The prosecution must prove I returned the kettle in a
| damaged state (they can't).
|
| 2. They must prove I received the kettle in an undamaged
| state (they can't).
|
| 3. They must prove I received the kettle at all (they can't).
| powellzer wrote:
| Seems as though Argument in the alternative focusses on
| eliminating possible explanations. Kettle Logic involves
| claiming 2 or more explanations to be true while being
| incompatible with each other, making it a logical fallacy.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The difference is that the kettle argument is simultaneous
| making multiple claims which are mutually inconsistent, and
| thus a kettle argument is by definition invalid. Even if it's
| true that _any one of the kettle subarguments_ being true would
| achieve the desired goal of the overall argument (e.g.
| exonerating the accused person), the fact that all subarguments
| are being claimed simultaneously means that at the bare minimum
| we know the person is lying.
|
| Of course, the "argument in the alternative" is only different
| by a slight technicality: you just put an "and even if I were
| lying in the previous step, ..." between each subargument.
| [deleted]
| nwatson wrote:
| I think the difference is that in Kettle Logic the presenter
| knows the truth, and the truth doesn't match any of the
| inconsistent affirmatives ... or else it mostly matches one of
| them but the presenter believes it's easier for the audience to
| swallow one of the other, false, alternatives.
| sjmm1989 wrote:
| Perhaps, but this also implies that the presenter isn't just
| full of shit (or biased!). Sad fact is, people have attached
| truth to subjectivity in society as of late, and so one
| persons truth may not be another's even though both are
| wrong. Or right. Or a mix of both.
|
| A good example of this is those rarer occasions when someone
| is accused of rape that never happened; and social media gets
| wind of it. To everyone who hears of it, mostly at least; the
| accuser is the honest one. And in some rare occasions, we
| find out they were not.
|
| I know this specific examples happens, because it was how my
| mother was born.
| jrootabega wrote:
| Or, as my generation learned it from Bart Simpson, "I didn't do
| it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!"
| jan_Inkepa wrote:
| Those claims are all in principle consistent with each other?
| pooper wrote:
| Yeah, I am confused as well. Those three claims are logically
| consistent. They may be in poor taste but they don't fit
| kettle logic as far as I understand.
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| This line is actually used in one of the linked
| articles[1], "Argument in the alternative", which
| apparently does not constitute kettle logic.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative
| jrootabega wrote:
| I saw that on wikipedia, but I disagree. I think the way
| that he says each part of his statement implies that the
| previous part is wrong. So the parts are inconsistent
| with each other from his comedic perspective:
|
| - I didn't do it.
|
| - (I did it, but) nobody saw me do it.
|
| - (You saw me do it, but) you can't prove anything.
|
| The statements alone, not considering the perspective of
| the speaker in parentheses, don't strictly contradict
| each other, but the speaker contradicts himself. He's
| Bart Simpson; he definitely did it and he would
| definitely lie about it.
| CapmCrackaWaka wrote:
| "Nobody saw me do it" and "I didn't do it" aren't
| mutually exclusive. In fact, if I don't do something,
| then by definition nobody saw me do it.
| tshaddox wrote:
| In my opinion it's clear that the implied interpretation
| of "Nobody saw me do it" is "When I did it, there was no
| one there to see it."
| rcoveson wrote:
| Alice: "Nobody saw me swimming in the pool last night"
|
| Bob: "Oh, how was it?"
|
| Alice: "How was what?"
|
| Bob: "Your late-night swim?"
|
| Alice: "I haven't been swimming in ages."
|
| Bob: "..."
| Shared404 wrote:
| Eve: "Ugh those two are idiots."
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Oh gosh, I have stories about this sort of logic from my time in
| American high school and college competitive debate.
|
| Usually, the affirmative team is proposing a plan that implements
| a resolution, and the negative team has to present arguments
| which convince the judge that either the plan, or the whole
| resolution is a bad idea.
|
| A trivial example of the kind of "Kettle" logic that we had to
| deal with on the affirmative, is the belief that performative
| contradictions are simply part of "Competing Interpretations" and
| are totally fine for the negative team to use. This meant that it
| was common for a team to simultaneously argue that 1. The
| affirmative plan crashes the economy and 2. That Capitalism is a
| fundamentally unjust system and that the affirmative plan
| reperpetuates it. If you (the affirmative) argued against point
| 1, the standard plan by the negative was to jettison their
| arguements and concede to whatever affirmative points and turn
| them to help their 2nd point ("Well, your plan helps the economy
| so much that it makes capitalism that much more powerful!")
|
| Smart teams argued that such "Performative Contradictions" and
| "Competing Interpretations" were fundamentally abusive. This was
| the correct strategy and by forcing the debate to devolve into
| these discussions of obscure theory we lost whatever educational
| value that the activity had about the topic.
|
| Kettle Logic is the first time I've had a name for this that
| wasn't a debate community term-of-art.
| jfengel wrote:
| I've never understood the grounds on which competitive debate
| is judged. It doesn't sound like what I would consider a good
| mechanism of persuasion. Is kettle logic actually a problem for
| a competitive debater?
| ambrozk wrote:
| There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept:
|
| "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the
| scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that
| son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"
| [deleted]
| cato_the_elder wrote:
| And there's the notorious "That's Not Happening and It's Good
| That It Is".
|
| I think the honest version of this kind of argument is helpful
| in some cases though. Not everybody agrees on the same set of
| the facts, and sometimes the conclusion one is arguing for is
| true regardless.
| rob_c wrote:
| Classic, been a while since id read that one :)
| ffhhj wrote:
| Shouldn't kettle logic be considered a paradox of Logic? Those
| options are mutually exclusive only if there are no hidden
| variables. We could make them theories and assign
| probabilities:
|
| There is X probability the client was nowhere near the scene of
| the murder, and Y probability he didn't mean to pull the
| trigger
|
| That way these are not exclusive and the contradiction
| disappears. Now suppose the client is convicted because X is
| too high, years later a hidden variable is revealed that
| reduces the probability to zero. He is released from jail, but
| another hidden variable appears that increases Y to 100%.
|
| There should also be a probability for unknown unknowns, when a
| fair coin falls sideways.
| _dain_ wrote:
| See also: "It Was A Long Time Ago And It Never Happened Anyway"
|
| https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192377/it-was-long-ti...
| tshaddox wrote:
| The funny thing is, if you spend too much time arguing with
| anonymous people on the Internet, you will routinely run into
| arguments that are both invalid and have false premises.
| Victerius wrote:
| What would that be in programmer speak?
|
| The intern had no write access to the production database, he
| didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it
| coming?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| "Ladies and gentlemen of the management, I was nowhere near
| the git repo on the day in question, I didn't mean to make
| that commit, and the customers suck anyways so they deserved
| that data loss bug."
| yongjik wrote:
| The line must be useful for something; you can't prove it
| actually does anything; who cares, you can always just
| restart the server!
|
| (...when presented with a line in the script that randomly
| hangs the server.)
| gpm wrote:
| The program didn't have write access to the log file, it
| didn't write to the log file, and who cares if there's a bit
| of junk at the end of the log files anyways?
|
| https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/
| raldi wrote:
| void *p = NULL; int i = *p / 0;
| JTbane wrote:
| I can't reproduce it; you're using it wrong; it's a feature,
| not a bug.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| There's an old Russian joke about it as well, roughly "That was
| a long time ago and didn't happen anyway."
| bjourne wrote:
| And the corollary: "Even if it didn't happen, it's still
| horrible!"
| danuker wrote:
| These three can in fact be all true at once, so the arguments
| are consistent, unlike kettle logic.
|
| "Didn't mean to pull the trigger" does not imply the defendant
| could pull the trigger.
| ambrozk wrote:
| The three incompatible scenarios are: 1. The
| accused was nowhere near the scene of the murder 2. The
| accused was at the scene of the murder, and in fact committed
| the murder, but on accident 3. The accused committed
| the murder on purpose, because the victim had it coming.
| throwawaycities wrote:
| These kinds of jokes are often used to make mock lawyers and
| even the legal profession.
|
| But under US criminal the defense doesn't have to do anything,
| the entire burden is on the government to prove beyond a
| reasonable doubt that: 1) a criminal act happened, 2) the
| defendant committed the act and 3) defendant had intent to
| commit the crime.
|
| Naturally opening/closing arguments actually sound very much
| like your joke...the government can't prove a crime happened;
| if they can they can't prove my client committed the act; and
| if they can they can't prove my client intended to commit the
| act.
|
| It sounds funny, but logically it makes a lot of sense to say
| things like we don't need to a get to the question of if the
| defendant committed the crime because the government can't
| prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime was committed (e.g. no
| body in a murder case).
| trhway wrote:
| it is actually illustrates QM superposition. Also reminds a
| situation when you're troubleshooting some complicated issue
| while not having yet enough information - you kind of running
| several, frequently mutually incompatible, scenarios in your
| head at the same time.
| emerged wrote:
| Obviously this "logic" is bad in the examples. But the brain is
| continually weighing contradictory branches of subjectivity. If
| multiple contradictory paths all arrive at the same conclusion,
| it's rational to weigh that as evidence in some Bayesian way.
| blastro wrote:
| Similar to the narcissist's prayer:
|
| That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it
| was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault.
| And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.
| Shared404 wrote:
| Thanks, I hate it.
|
| This is just a quick reminder to everyone to check yourself and
| make sure you aren't falling into the trap of thinking like
| this, I know it happens to me occasionally.
|
| And there's very little I've seen that damages relationships[0]
| more.
|
| [0] All kinds, not just romantic.
| SomeCallMeTim wrote:
| Which seems entirely too familiar for some reason...something
| that came up a lot for four years but then stopped about two
| years ago?
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| emerged wrote:
| Yep, sounds like Dad.
| HPsquared wrote:
| That seems more like "argument in the alternative" (see the
| comment by a_shovel).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-10 23:00 UTC)