The conspiracy of the British departments against Russia, or Logic for the smallest
The Committee on Digital Technologies, Culture, Sport and the Media of Great Britain published the report “Misinformation and fake news", The main part of which (if you do not take into account the chapter with an explanation of terminology) is devoted to the evil deeds of the Kremlin.
The report claims to be the title of analytical work, or perhaps even a scientific article, designed to explain to the average person what is meant in the modern world by misinformation and fake news. If such a report were released in an ideal world, then after reading it, the reader would learn to distinguish the product of unbiased journalism from subjective propaganda texts.
To nip the confusion of concepts initially, consider how science defines the explanation:
It is probably the last clarification that allows the greatest, so to speak, analysts in the Western world to introduce their gullible readers into error. As practice shows, with logic in its scientific understanding, not everyone is alright at all, otherwise they would not include syllogisms in all sorts of tests for mental state and mobility of thinking (“All bullfinches are birds, are all birds bullfinches?”).
Juggling with concepts allows one to substitute logical conviction with emotional conviction. If you simplify the rhetoric of Western politicians, shaking it down to a short dialogue, it will look something like this:
- Russia is a terrible country!
- She intervened in our elections!
- But why?
- Because Russia is a terrible country!
The introduction to the chapter on “Russian interference” is structured in this way: the first paragraph says that the fake news is bad, the second is that the authors of the report’s committee “has evidence” of the influence of the Russian government on British elections and referenda, the third calls for distrust of the Russian news agencies. Russia today ”and“ Sputnik ”because they spread disinformation. It is assumed that in this series one follows from the other, but these theses can be swapped, and a new chain of reflections will turn out, no less absurd than the original one.
After the introductory part, the authors of the report proceed to what should have been evidence of the allegations on the first page of the chapter. What does a well-formed logical proof consist of? From the thesis, arguments and facts, as well as demonstrations - substantiation of the logical connection between the thesis and arguments. By the way, schoolchildren will learn about this when they learn to write an essay-argument (approximately in the seventh grade).
British scientists may have their own rules for writing scientific work: they do not need arguments and justifications, it is enough to choose more theses. The authors quote a quote from Bill Browder, executive director of the British investment fund Hermitage Capital Management:
“The goal of Russian disinformation and propaganda is to sow doubt in the mind of each of us. If they can achieve this, they will achieve all their goals. ”
This statement contains two theses, each of which is subject to proof or refutation. However, it serves as a complete, decorated thought.
Another conclusion, the logic of which Sherlock Holmes himself would envy, comes from Edward Lucas, a writer and security expert:
“The fact that Russia is much weaker than the West is true. Its population is seven times smaller than ours. Its GDP is one of our fourteenth. But she can still hurt us. ”
It seems that Mr. Lucas is a little lost in the thought of his reasoning. We will not completely destroy his statement, trying to understand why "Russia is much weaker than the West." But let's pay attention to something else: if we rearrange the last sentence to the beginning, the replica acquires a completely opposite meaning.
The above quotes clearly demonstrate the main feature of Western rhetoric - its contradiction to the laws of logic. On the one hand, it is very convenient and gives a huge advantage if you act quickly: whoever comes up with the first one and voices the accusation, however blatantly absurd it may be, won the round. On the other hand, this advantage is very fragile, and it does not become more stable over time. That is why the British anti-Russian statement on the “Scripal case” has not yet turned into something more serious. Imagine for a second, if all this were true and London had evidence that they were speaking live ... At least in the football championship, the Russian team would compete with their own reserve team.
- Victor Zaretsky
- The georgia straight
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.