passover cleaning clarification April 12, 2006
Bassie: the house isn’t clean.
Dina: Yes, it is.
Bassie: No, it’s not.
Dina: Yes it is clean.
Bassie: Stop saying that. The kitchen isn’t clean.
Dina: Yeah, the house is clean, just not the kitchen.
Bassie: But that means that the house isn’t clean.
Dina: Yes: the kitchen is dirty; the rest of the house is clean.
Bassie: Mommy, Dina’s telling lies!
Me: No she’s not.
Bassie: But when she says ‘the house is clean’, it makes me think that the whole house is clean, but it’s not.
Me: Bassie, that’s your inability to accept her qualified statement, not her logical inconsistency.
Bassie sighs.
Pause.
Dina: The house is clean, but not the kitchen.
Word to the wise, Bassie: watch your back.
Why is this fight different from all other fights?
I’m with Bassie. The kitchen being clean is a necessary condition for the house being clean. [In essence because saying that the house is clean implies that all of the house is clean, like saying your homework is done implies that all of it is done.] The interesting thing here is that Dina has learned how to subtly change an originally fallacious statement (which Bassie called her on) into an acceptable one while denying that any change has taken place. First she claims the house is clean, then she CHANGES HER ARGUMENT by adding an exception (a condition, from a logical point of view)… all the while appearing to engage in the same disagreement. Then, when it is shown that her NEW argument holds water, she appears to come out a victor! Clever like a fox. As some of you know, I’ve been classifying archetypical logical irregularities in prosaic discourse, and I call this type simply: “Not Your Original Argument.”
Hmm…that’s funny; I call it “The McClain Method”.
it certainly is a McClain Method… do you think we could make the sarcasm more accurate and cutting by saying “The McClain Methods” would be an adequate name of the set of objects under consideration?
Glad you appreciated my witty language used to convey insults or scorn. Should we suggest another “McClain Method”, then? How about: “Deliberate Overstatement”? In other words, starting with a highly overstated claim so that when you adjust down to a more likely, but still inaccurate figure, you will sound more credible.
E.g.
Bassie: I know I won’t be able to go to sleep for a hundred hours.
Me: That’s impossible.
Bassie: Well, fine. But for eight hours.
Anyone want to add, or provide other examples?