5 Logical Constructions

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, the discussion surrounding climate change and the combatting of climate change has been ‘booming’. That is, more and more arguments of different kinds, both arguments in favour and arguments against, have been offered regarding the necessity of combatting climate change. Because of this exposure however, as is the case with many debates and discussions that enter the public eye on such a level, a certain threat arises whenever the topic of climate change is being discussed: the use of vague and empty terms.

What I mean by ‘vagueness’ and ‘emptiness’ here is the situation where the definitions used in a discussion or conversation get muddled up, so to speak, in the sense that no clear definition can be actually given. This can be especially harmful to a meaningful discussion when both participants in said discussion already have a definition of a certain term in mind, and assume that the other individual uses the same definition, without having any clear reason to think so.

For instance, consider a conversation between person A and person B regarding the ‘soup of the day’. When talking about the soup of the day, both persons explicitly tell each other that they both thoroughly enjoyed it. However, the conversation that each individual has in their own head actually goes as follows:

Both individuals here are in fact thinking about what they believe to be the soup of the day. However, person A is talking about the classic meal, whereas person B is talking about the hit satire TV-show The Soup. Again, on a broader level, both individuals are talking about the same thing; both parties agree that the soup of the day has been rather enjoyable. However, if you look at what each person is actually thinking, you find out that this is simply not the case, and that both persons are thinking about wildly different things.

In this specific example, the notion of ‘the soup of the day’ is not as simple and straightforward as it might initially seem. Due to the fact that both participants in the conversation regarding the soup of the day have a different definition of the term, and that despite this they are still able to have a mutual conversation about it and agree with each other, namely that it was enjoyable today, gives us a far more complex interpretation of the term. More specifically: ‘the soup of the day’ has been turned into this abstract notion that can still be talked and reasoned about. This type of abstract concepts is precisely something that Bertrand Russell has discussed in his Logical Atomism,^[1] (originally published in 1924)^[2] and that he has dubbed ‘logical constructions’, but more on that later.

This type of problem is caused by a distinct lack of an exact given definition used in a conversation. In the aforementioned example, either of the two persons might have been able to prevent this problem by specifying beforehand what specific topic they would like to discuss. I do still consider this sense of emptiness within definitions as a problem though, because it prevents us from having any sensible discussion where such vagueness arises, including any discussion regarding topics like climate change. Because I consider this vagueness as a problem, I also consider it to be something that has to be solved. It is important to note that completely solving any problem surrounding vagueness in any discussion is one hell of a task, and is way beyond the scope of this chapter. I therefore want to look specifically at Russell’s notion of logical constructions, in order to create a better understanding of it, and to understand the impact it has on and the danger it might pose for discussions like the one regarding climate change.

LOGICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

The concept of logical constructions was introduced by Bertrand Russell as part of his theory of ‘logical atomism’. In this theory, roughly, Bertrand Russell was looking for what he considered to be the ‘logical atoms’, concepts or definitions that needed no further analysis. In short, every definition or concept that is used in a conversation can be further analysed in order to get a more specific definition. For instance, ‘soup of the day’ can be specified further into ‘liquid meal of the day’ or ‘TV-episode of the day’. Eventually, according to Russell, we are able to reach the limit of such an analysis. Eventually we would reach an entity or a description of an entity that cannot be specified or simplified any further, hence the term logical atom. If we were to make sentences built up out of nothing but these ultimate logical forms, we would be able to have a perfectly logical use of language, resulting in harmony, argued Russell.

This simplification is where the logical constructions come into play. There are instances where we would want to refer to a certain object or entity, but this entity is not actually something that exists. In this sense, a logical construction is an inherently fictional entity, used as a representation of another concept. There cannot be one precise definition of it, as the concept the construction has to represent is far too complex for there to be one possible definition. However, despite it being fictional, the rules of logic and reasoning still apply to the logical construction. To link this to the previous example of the soup of the day: in the direct conversation between person A and B, the term they both use, namely ‘soup of the day’, is a logical construction, as there cannot be one precise definition of it (as it is too complex), but it can still be reasoned about, as has been shown by the fact that they are having a conversation about it.

In the rest of this chapter, I will show some examples of this concept of logical constructions within the discussions surrounding climate change and what dangers that might come with it.

LOGICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN PRACTICE

As a brief summary of what logical constructions are and how they can be used:

Whenever such a concept might be in play, it is far too complex for any participant in the discussion to give a clear definition of it. Despite this, the concept is a part of the discussion that is still very valuable to talk about, and so we need to figure out how to simplify the concept, which is where logical constructions come into play. These constructions simply boil down the concept to a fictional and more basic structure, a structure which can then be used in the conversation.

A very common example to show how logical constructions come into play in real and actual conversations is whenever we talk about ‘the average’ of something. Whenever you get into a very exact topic like statistics (basically just numbers), it is really easy to discuss what ‘the average’ entails. For instance, if you are the chef of a packed restaurant that has a maximum capacity of twenty people, and the waiter says to you that ten of the twenty patrons have enjoyed the soup, then it is very safe for you to make the deduction that on average, half of all the patrons will enjoy your soup whenever you make it for a group of people. This is what I would call an ‘exact’ average. Whenever you talk about specific numbers of things, like in statistics, mathematics and chance, this exact type of average can be used.

However, things take a different turn whenever you get into the area of what I would call an ‘abstract’ sense of average. Take the example again where you are the chef. You have heard from your waiter that the average amount of people that enjoy your soup is about half (exact). However, you can then ask the waiter what the average patron of your restaurant is like (abstract). You will find that the waiter will have a lot more difficulty answering this specific question, as the subject of the question is far more complex than simple numbers. Every single person that enters the restaurant is a unique individual, and to try to combine them all into one average individual is an inherently difficult task. Describing these types of complex averages is therefore what I would call an abstract average, as it is very unclear what the right answer would be, if there even is one.

Despite the difficulty with which this average is given, it is still rather valuable information in a discussion regarding the subject of the average. If you know what the average patron is like, you are able to cater your recipe more specifically to the average needs, in order for your soup to be much more of a hit with more people than it already is. Therefore, you still want to be able to talk about the average patron as if this person actually exists: you turn the concept of ‘the average patron’ into a logical construction. By doing so, you are able to talk about the abstract average as if it actually exists, and you are able to use this notion of an average to your advantage and change your recipe. However, because the average patron is a logical construction, it does not actually have to exist.

LOGICAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN CLIMATE CHANGE

The use of logical constructions as I have shown in the example above is a method to talk about complex topics that is widely used. And in the same way that the waiter wants to be able to convey information about the average patron at their restaurant, and therefore uses logical constructions in order to do so, so too are logical constructions used in the discussion regarding climate change.

Consider this^[3] report by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), about the cost of climate change for households and families within the European Union. In this report, the EESC provides an analysis of certain sets of data, in order to uncover what the financial impact of climate change would be on the average household within the European Union. When it comes to logical constructions, let’s focus on the final part of that sentence: the average household within the European Union. What precisely is meant by this? Throughout the report, the EESC continues to refer to the average EU27 household, as if there is some specific household out there that is a perfect representation of what the absolute average of all the households within the European Union is.

In practice you will find, however, that despite the fact that the EESC refers to such a household, it is almost impossible to actually create an image of such an ‘average household’. Even when we are talking about one specific country (for simplicity’s sake, let’s use the Netherlands as an example), it already seems very difficult to simply compare two households from different parts of the country. Taking a household from the Randstad and a household from the countryside of Groningen and putting them together to try to create the average Dutch household is difficult enough, now imagine doing this with a Polish household and an Italian one, for instance.

Because of the numerous cultural differences between all the households within the European Union, it is pretty much impossible to actually create an image of ‘the average EU27 household’. It is however very beneficial for the EESC to be able to refer to such a concept, as it provides a way for the EESC to show what generally speaking would be the average impact of climate change, which makes it so that the EESC is able to educate the masses on the dangers of climate change. Thus it creates a logical construction, and the average EU27 household is born. The EESC has created a useful fictional entity on the basis of information about all other households, in order to provide information to said households.

THE DANGERS OF BOILING DOWN

Despite the obvious benefits of using logical constructions, namely the explanatory power a simplified notion of a more complex concept provides, it is not all sunshine and rainbows. Imagine you live in Japan, and on almost all fronts you consider yourself to be a part of the average Japanese household. For instance, you consider yourself to be almost exactly average in terms of household composition, salary, and food consumption. There is, however, one front in which you consider yourself to be beyond the average, namely in the sense that you try your damnedest to ensure that you limit your food waste and that you generally recycle as much as possible. Then, when you read your favourite science journal Nature, you encounter this^[4] article, talking about how the average Japanese household has to do more about their food waste in order to combat some of the negative effects of climate change. Because you consider yourself to be a part of such a household, you feel like your efforts to combat food waste and your drive to recycle have all gone to waste, as the average Japanese household apparently has to do more on these fronts.

Because logical constructions are meant to ‘boil down’ complex concepts into simpler entities, by using logical constructions you create the danger of simplifying too much, even to the point where you might exclude some members of the community that you actually wish to simply inform about a certain concept. As a sort of thought experiment, or philosophical exercise if you will, regarding this specific problem, consider doing the following: the next time you are reading the news and you see something about the average member of a group, a group of which you know you are technically a member, try to think about whether you actually identify with this average member. Or, more specifically:

CONCLUSION

To conclude, in this chapter I have provided an explanation for what logical constructions are and what their positive and negative effects are. Logical constructions are abstracts, fictional entities used to represent complex concepts in a simpler and more accessible manner. The very useful effect of this is that you can talk about and apply reason to said complex concept, without running into any issues regarding the complexity of it. For instance, it is very hard to have an actual representation of an average member of a certain group, as every individual is so unique that a direct comparison is almost impossible to make between them. But by creating an abstract and fictional entity meant to merely represent this average, by just accepting that such an entity exists in this abstract sense, you can use this representation to create a better understanding of certain concepts. This does however come with a price, as simplifying things too much can create difficulties of its own, like the loss of details of certain members of the group of which you are trying to create an average that are actually very valuable to keep. I therefore conclude that logical constructions are a very useful tool in any discussion, and therefore also in the discussion regarding climate change. But it is also important to keep in mind whenever you do use or encounter such a logical construction, why exactly a logical construction is used, and what is lost by doing so.

Creative interpretation of an abstract average

Special thanks to Fabian Brink for accompanying me through the creative writing process