A Favorite Phrase: Logical Fallout

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately, and not so much writing on it. Considering that my own philosophical thoughts are more for myself than others, I find little need to write them for public discourse, i.e. I am interested in knowing what is truth; whether my neighbor wants to know, care to know, or needs to know is irrelevant to me.

I am aware I require some work in the charity department (And yes, I would argue that correcting someone is an act of charity, most of the time).

However onto a personal phrase of mine that I use: Logical Fallout.

What does it mean? Let us first define what we mean by the two words separately.

Many confuse what is meant by ‘logical.’

That isn’t logical.
It doesn’t logically follow.
You’re not being logical.
That’s his logical way.

In laymen discourse, the word tends to get thrown around. It also tends to be equivocated. What this means is that the word is being used in different senses; that is, its meaning is being strangled, killed, and replaced by a doppelganger that is wearing its face as a skin-mask.

Often “logical” is equivocated with the word “rational.” (And at times also with “true”)

Science is rational.
Science is logical
Religion isn’t logical nor rational.

These sentences actually have no meaning–that is, they are literal nonsense. The words uttered are mere noise. The only way they can have meaning is with reference to context; that is, the particularities that establish them as such.

So let us define what logical is, or more specifically, what logic is.


Pretty vacuous isn’t it? That is, it doesn’t really tell us much without asking what the hell it means to be reasonable and what defines good judgment.

So let’s try again.


This is better.

Logic is the study of arguments. Without becoming too technical, there are valid arguments and invalid arguments. What this means is that there are arguments that properly proceed from its propositions, and arguments that do not. Just because they properly proceed does not mean they are true; likewise, just because its a bad argument does not mean it is false.

Philosophy is confusing, I know. A short hand version:

One must start from a truth to logically follow towards a truth.

Simply put, logic acts as a means for a starting place to show us how it’ll end up elsewhere. You start at X, mix in Y, and end up with Z.


 All mortals die.
 All men are mortals.
Conclusion: All men die.

From here, we can see why “Religion isn’t logical” (and other like statements) is just noise and nonsense.

All religions are, more or less, logical; the question is whether they are true. (Can you smell the equivocation?)


Christianity: Christ is the incarnate Logos, therefore he is Divine and human.
Islam: Christ is a human prophet, therefore he isn’t Divine.
Modernism: Christ didn’t exist, therefore he is neither Divine nor a human prophet.

So now that I have, hopefully, established what it means to be logical: What do I mean by fallout? Fortunately the Cambridge dictionary is clearer on this.


So how shall we define my favorite phrase: Logical Fallout?

The results or effects of a particular argument.

Let us take an example.

All apples cause diarrhea when eaten.
If I want to avoid diarrhea, I should not eat apples.
I want to avoid diarrhea.
Therefore, I do not eat apples.

Let us now say this argument applies country wide, but let us not apply this logical rigor so tightly, but nevertheless assume all the citizens 100% follow the previous argument. What happens?

Apples are seen as bad. Everyone avoids apples. Apples have no useful means outside of eating them. Someone abuses an apple via a prank or terrorism. Apples become outlawed to prevent accidental consumption. Import bans are placed on apples. etc..

Outside of this fictional world, the argument and logical fallout are seen as silly. I doubt anyone will deny this. Nevertheless the argument and effects are logical; that is, the argument is valid, and its consequences follow from it: Hence, Logical Fallout.

And how did it all start? From that first sentence: All apples cause diarrhea.

One must start from a truth to logically follow towards a truth.

The mindful reader will note that I did not include in the historical narrative whether anyone actually got sick because of the apple terrorism/prank. Let us assume they didn’t get sick.

Why did everything continue forward into this logical fallout then?

Because of that first sentence still. It was assumed as true, even though there was contrary (particular) evidence to it.

In the real world, let us take a closer example. Indeed, our current phrasing betrays us through this very example.

All religions are illogical and causes stupidity.
If I want to avoid stupidity, then I should avoid religion.
I want to avoid stupidity.
Therefore, I avoid religion.

What is the logical fallout of this? Men and women of Faith, of any kind, are seen as less intellectual than their non-religious counterparts. Only the non-religious hold any intellectual credibility. There is a social disgust of the intellectual elite and laymen in regards to the religious person. This religious person is, eo ipso, stupid.

Further: A dichotomy has appeared: the rival of religion that is science, which has been defined as “rational” and “logical” precisely due its ‘failed’ counterpart. That is, there is religion and science only. If religion is illogical, then science must be logical.

Yet as I pointed out before, the statement “all religions are illogical” and all other statements are actually nonsense.

But this is the current logical fallout of modernism.

One of many, which is why I enjoy my phrase.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s