Navigating the Nuances of Generalisation in Logic and Critical Theory
A central theme in logic is the concept of generalisation. Generalisations involve making statements about groups, such as asserting that all cats have four legs, no pigs can fly, or some people have blue eyes. There are two primary types of generalisations in logic: universal and existential. Universal generalisations concern every member of a group, while existential generalisations refer to at least one member.
In orthodox logic, the criteria for evaluating these statements are stringent. For instance, a universal generalisation fails if even a single group member deviates from the claim. The statement that all prime numbers are odd is incorrect because the number 2 is an even prime number. Despite the infinite odd prime numbers compared to the singular even prime number, the generalisation does not hold. Conversely, existential generalisations hold true if at least one instance can be verified, making the statement "some prime numbers are even" accurate due to the existence of 2.
Generalisations typically work in a reverse fashion in everyday reasoning. For example, encountering a three-legged cat might lead one to acknowledge, despite surprise, that some cats indeed have three legs. Alternatively, the belief that all cats chase birds might deter someone from letting their cat outside to prevent bird chasing.
The application of generalisations becomes murky in critical theory discussions, such as feminism. A common oversimplification on platforms like YouTube, often perpetuated by figures like Pederson, is the notion that feminists believe all men are inherently bad, based on the experiences of some women who have been victims of sexual abuse. This simplification misrepresents both groups, suggesting a failure to distinguish between the individual and systemic levels of analysis.
Critical theory often grapples with generalisations about social power dynamics, requiring careful consideration of whether claims operate on a logical or statistical basis. The statement that women are victims of sexual abuse by men does not imply that every woman is abused by every man; rather, it indicates a statistical trend where most victims are women, and most perpetrators are men.
In wrapping up, I'm not proposing a resolution to this intricate issue but rather inviting you to ponder the subtle differences between logical and statistical generalisations. The discourse around #notallmen and feminist critiques illustrates a critical point of confusion: conflating individual exceptions with broader statistical trends. By understanding these nuances, we can foster more informed and productive discussions about societal challenges. This reflection isn't about offering solutions but encouraging a deeper contemplation of how we interpret and generalize complex social phenomena.
