The 3 Why's of Empirical Logic

1 - What It Is

Like any good amateur scientist, I know that the most useful facet of any experiment, be it physical or in this case mental, is repeatability. Keeping this in mind, I have devised an introspective gate-keeping double-check that incorporates repeatability into itself.

The thing I like most about this premise is that it was inspired by the mind of a typical 5 year old. What I mean is that any five year old will ask you a question, you will give them an answer, and they will respond with the ad infinitum response of "Why?" 

I surmise that this is their basic way laying the mental mechanisms through which they will come to interpret and understand the reasoning behind another person’s thinking, a simplified precursor to the empathetic response. This applied to the opinion of an adult can have a similar effect of helping them to understand the reasoning behind their own thinking. As we grow we tend to take certain mindsets for granted, and we absorb and reflect them without ever actually considering the deeper meaning behind them. This is frequently seen with religious beliefs as well as political; this is why political and religious beliefs are as typically passion on as brown eyes and dimples.

2- How It Works

The thought experiment works like this: first, an opinion is expressed. For instance, “I think chocolate ice cream is the best there is.” Second: the question “Why?,” is posed as a response. Now, if the responses of the originator of the opinion fall outside of the following two categories: begrudging concession, or repetition; then they may have logical merit. Now, by begrudging concession I mean that they cannot give you a cop out form of an answer such as “Whatever.” And, by repetition I mean that they cannot be repeating previous information which they had used previously. If either of these responses are noted, then the originator of the opinion immediately loses the exchange and concedes to the asker.

Now, it is called the “3 Why's of Empirical Logic” because the rebutter asks the question “Why?” 3 times. So, let us follow this path together: 

Person A: I think chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream there is.

Person B: Why?

Person A: Because, I like its flavor the best.

Person B: Why?

Person A: Because, it tastes the best. 

Result: This is a tautology; this is information has been repeated, and the originator of the opinion immediately loses.

Conversely, let's look at an argument that can survive the three “Why’s?” test. 

Person A: I think sunny days are better than rainy days.

Person B: Why?

Person A: Because sunlight makes me happy.

Person B: Why?

Person A: Because I can go out and be active without getting wet.

Person B: Why?

Person A: Because getting wet makes me feel gross. 

Result: 3 “Why?” questions have been survived without either repeating information or conceding, so this argument has validity.

3 - Why It Works

Although these examples might suggest that only certain types of opinions would survive the “3 Why” challenge, it is designed specifically to help the person with the opinion delve deeper into their own understanding and determine what their motivations for having the opinion are. To this end, it is less a rejection methodology than it is an introspection methodology. Moreover, if a person wanted to give their opinion validity, they could use this methodology and find corroborative reasons that are neither redundant nor evasive; thus, the result would be that they would pose a valid argument to any given opinion.

Although, as any five year old will no doubt agree, there really is no need to limit the number of “Why” repetitions to 3. But, asking “Why” too many times will, no doubt, result in either repetition or concession. Besides, this is simply a short test either to see if the surface opinion has validity to it, or else to determine whether or not the originator of the opinion is holding onto the belief out of some sort of familial or social obligation. At its heart, the reason why the number is 3 is because this will help any arguer to root out the core motivation behind any given belief.

4 - The Reason It Is Needed

Far too often, people walk around believing things which they had not choice in incorporating into their mental and life framework. As a result, when their beliefs are challenged, they often resort to attacking the person directly instead of addressing the counter-argument. They have no rational basis for their belief, since it was inherited, so they interpret any challenge to it as a personal attack because of the inherent vulnerability in not having a strong defense for believing it. The resulting emotional response does not foster a logical reasoning pattern to their thought process. Extended further, this means that their method for interacting with their entire life is on a shaky basis, at best. This would lead them to address every choice from what coffee they order to who they should marry based on largely emotional factors rather than giving logic its fair share of the responsibility for their decisions. Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not suggesting that we live our lives like Vulcans, completely divorced from all emotional interaction. I’m simply proposing that we, as a society, try to balance our emotional reflex with our logical tendencies so that we can experience the best of both worlds. The resulting society may not save the world overnight, but it might, at the very least, prevent decisions that would lead to the frivolous lawsuits associated with Road Rage. Wouldn’t that be a nice world in which to live?