Bivalence

We are disturbed not by events, but by the views which we take of them.
- Epictetus

Logic is the study of patterns found in reasoning. The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments. Classical logic traces its roots to India in the 6th century BC, to China in the 5th century BC, and to Greece between the 4th century BC and the 1st century BC. These logics are all "bivalent" or "two-valued"; that is, they are most naturally understood as dividing propositions into either those that are true or those that are false.

It was not until the early 20th century Jan Łukasiewicz, a Polish mathematician, investigated the extension of the traditional or classical true/false values of logic to include a third value, "possible", so inventing ternary or trivalent logic, the first multi-valued logic. Systems of logic that reject bivalence are known as non-classical logics. Logics such as fuzzy logic have since been devised with an infinite number of "degrees of truth", represented by a real number between 0 and 1. Bayesian probability can be interpreted as a system of logic where probability is the subjective truth-value.

So what does this have to do with Epictetus? Our culture is an obsessively two-valued culture, and bivalence is the lens through which we view events and ideas, and thus we are disturbed. This is not only evidenced in the black and white thinking that is so prevalent today; it permeates our entire way of life. For example, we have all sorts of two-sided games, such as chess, checkers, tennis, boxing, pool, etc., and all sorts of two-sided team games, such as bridge, football, baseball, soccer, basketball, etc. Of course we also have all sorts of any-sided games, such as poker, baccarat, track events, skiing events, etc. But we have exactly no three-sided games of any kind. You will never see three teams take any court or field anywhere. Hmmnnn.

Our justice system is intrinsically two-valued. There must be prosecution and defense, plaintiff and respondent, a verdict of guilty or not guilty, one winner and one loser, always. Everyone hates a hung jury, which is either seen as a failure of the system or results in a some form of retrial or appeal anyway – a sort of legal “do-over” if you will.

Most everyone takes it for granted that there are exactly two sides to every argument. When it comes to abortion, for example, there is the pro-choice side and the pro-life side, and people who haven't chosen one of these two sides do not represent a third side, they just do not represent any side at all. The same is true of issues like animal rights, capital punishment, and drug legalization.

The media play an important role in shaping our reality into two-sided events. Very often two-sidedness is not clearly evident in developing situations. The fundamental newsgathering process helps to clarify (or manufacture) that desired two-sidedness. If one expert says that X is wonderful, the reporter is expected to find another expert who will say that X is terrible, or that Y is much more wonderful than X. This is, to a large extent, what makes the story “news”.

When it comes to "the environment," it was not so easy to polarize the community. Where do you send a reporter to get a quote against clean water? Or against clean air? Obviously everybody wants clean water and clean air. The issue had to be recast into one that does not put everyone on the same side - and so it was. After a lot of pushing and pulling, a lot of tweaking, a way was found to represent the interests of the environment as being opposed to the interests of business and thus of employment - of people. This is kind of mind-boggling but that is how it has shaken out. You can't be for business/prosperity and for the environment - you've got to "choose sides." This is an interesting example of taking a thing that originally presented only one side and manipulating it so as to create two sides, thereby putting any real solution completely out of reach.

I would love to see a verdict of “sort of guilty.” I would be entranced watching three football teams slug it out on a triangular field, with temporary and shifting alliances and betrayals. But what I would most dearly love to see is some sort of “fuzzy-media” movement to start breaking down the black and white thinking that creates the gridlock that is ultimately wrecking our planet. I don’t really expect this to happen, however, after walking around in shorts this past Saturday (January 6th) I felt compelled to comment.