Talk:Kettle logic

Use of Kettle Logic

Should there be a short note that the use of kettle logic in legal defense is quite common?

1. I did not kill the man
2. The man was already dead when I found him
3. I was insane and not responsible for killing him

Nasukaren (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Or better yet: "I didn't copy anything substantial, and even if I did, it was fair use." --Damian Yerrick (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I found it: The legal use is called alternative pleading, which is linked from this article's "See also" section. If you have good sources tying the term "kettle logic" to the term "alternative pleading", go ahead and hoist the link out of "See also" and into the prose. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, given the ease of transforming kettle logic into a consistent alternative pleading, which source even calls this a fallacy? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

When an alternative pleading is consistent, it is not kettle logic. When it is inconsistent, it is fallacious, and may therefore be called kettle logic. Paradoctor (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

←

So how, if at all, should we clarify the article(s)? I acknowledge that "kettle logic" refers to the uses of this concept that are not valid alternative pleading. (I also acknowledge that we haven't yet answered the question of sourcing. I am currently too busy to help.)

However, alternative pleading seems to be specifically a law term as that article currently implies. Is that the case? If so, what is the generally-accepted term for logically-consistent "alternative pleading" outside law? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

"law term": Yes, now referenced inline in the lead of alternative pleading.

'logically-consistent "alternative pleading"': I think that is called "valid argument"? ;)

Nasukaren's claim that kettle logic is "common" needs a source.

As far as putting alternative pleading into the article body, I concur with Damian: we need some source stating the connection.

Paradoctor (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Bad Article Example

Example is fundamentally flawed in its logic. Any 1 of these 3 separate arguments does not offer any contradiction to the other arguments separately or as a whole. Also the section only states conclusions based on a sole source. 5thColumnist (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

1. That he had returned the kettle undamaged
2. That it was already damaged when he borrowed it
3. That he had never borrowed it in the first place

Your comment makes no sense. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I added the material you were talking about below. It only makes sense in that context. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Info removed by 5thColumnist:

Kettle logic has found its way into mainstream thought, and can be used as a claim as to why an argument, topic, or reasoning behind an action is illogical. One example of kettle logic is found in popular philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Žižek's book, Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle. He uses Freud's original kettle anecdote to make a case that the argument (or arguments) that were used to justify starting the War in Iraq were contradictory. He outlines three arguments used by the United States government:

1. Weapons of mass destruction possessed by Iraq and Saddam Hussein were an imminent threat to Western nations.
2. Even if no weapons of mass destruction were found, Saddam Hussein still played an integral role with al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks.
3. Regardless of no evidence towards a link with al-Qaeda, Saddam Hussein ran a human-rights violating, violent dictatorship.

Žižek points out the inconsistencies in these arguments and claims they were used to persuade Americans that going to war was the necessary thing. Like the kettle, one argument was put side by side with another to try and strengthen the idea of the main point. With the kettle, it was to convince the neighbor that the kettle was returned undamaged. In this case, it was to convince the public that war was necessary.

References

Freud # Derrida

In fact, the "kettlestory" and its analysis in Freud's Witz and Interpretation of the dreams must be distinguished from the philosophical interpretation in relation of "logic" and "philosophy". In Derrida, the expression "logique du chaudron" is not so important: in Résistances − de la psychanalyse (1996), Derrida is interested in the "Irma's dream". In the 70-years in Dissemination Derrida compares the "kettle-story" - he speaks of the "raisonnement du chaudron" - with his conception of the "écriture". It would be necessary to make 2 parts in the article : 1) upon the "kettle-story" in Freud; 2) in the philosophy, specially in Derrida. The references in french are on WP.fr. (in a few days, I hope) Cordialement (en français, scuse my english) --Bruinek (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kettle logic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206112449/http://www.harris-greenwell.com:80/HGS/FreudsKettleLogic to http://www.harris-greenwell.com/HGS/FreudsKettleLogic

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Post-truth subversion

An article in Rational Wiki that criticized a paper I wrote brought me here. There is a weakness worth a warning in Kettle Logic in that a claim for it should not be based on fragmentary extractions or incomplete assessments. It should not be used to ignore and thus dismiss important details. For example, 1) I returned your kettle undamaged. 2) What you're pointing at is obviously a factory defect. 3) By the way this isn't the kettle I borrowed. This, and the original, is sound logic if you understand the missing fact that there are two kettles. A statement like this can be subverted, as happened to me, to suggest unsound logic. As a corollary I suggest "leaky cauldron capacitance". It is still quite possible to bail the bilge with a leaky bucket. Yes the bucket is leaky, but that does not warrant the claim that the bucket fails to bail the bilge. If the leak is small enough or the bailing fast enough, the bucket can still do the job. To claim that the bilge was bailed with a leaky bucket is not faulty logic. Ken McRitchie (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

"the original, is sound logic" The example in the article uses "the kettle" and subsequently "it", so there is clearly only one kettle involved. That aside, I don't see any suggestions for changes to the article. Please keep in mind that, per WP:TALK#Use, we don't discuss the article subject, just how to edit the article. Paradoctor (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Post-truth subversion is a way of lying and this is where "it" is introduced where it doesn't belong. The subtlety of this sort of change can escape many people, including apparently readers targeted by Rational Wiki. In my case it was like "the test was rigged against their success but they succeeded anyway" versus "the test was rigged against any possibility of their success, yet they succeeded anyway". Words were added to become kettle logic. Clever of them eh? The article here is good. Just saying. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)