Commentators have argued that the evidential basis used to obtain the FISA warrant that launched the Mueller investigation was seriously flawed because it contained information that was either: (a) false; (b) misleading; (c) uncorroborated; (d) unverifiable; or (e) contradictory.

Now, the probability of (a) and of (e) is, of course, zero. So, the probability of a judgment based on all of (a)-(e) is zero because that probability is computed by multiplying (not adding) individual probabilities. As to the probability of a judgment based on (b)-(d), that is bound to be pretty low; maybe not zero but close enough to it.

However, speaking as a former logic professor, my question is whether the set (a)-(e) can form the logical basis for a judgment we should take seriously. A logic professor on Mueller’s staff—I doubt there was one—would have told him “hell, no.” Here’s why.

Contradictory Information

Contradictions are, of course, false. But that’s not the worst of it. The worst of it is that one may validly infer any statement whatever from a contradiction. The argument for this is elementary:

1. p & ~p (take this as the form of a contradiction, with ~ as the symbol for negation and & as the symbol for conjunction, “and”).
2. Infer p from 1 by the rule of Simplification.
3. Infer from 2 p v q by the rule of Addition (where q is anything you like and v is the symbol for inclusive disjunction, ”or”).
4. Infer ~p from 1 by the rules of Commutation and Simplification, in that order.
5. Infer q from 3 and 4 by the rule of Disjunctive Syllogism.  QED

So, a contradiction in an evidential base means that we can prove, for example, that the moon is made of green cheese. Contradictory beliefs are evidence of “sensitivity” or “inclusiveness” to the likes of AOC, Bernie Sanders, and clown car riders.

False Information

It is always counterintuitive to elementary logic students to learn that an argument can be logically correct even though one or more premises are false. I get the “deer in headlights” look when I add that an argument can be logically correct even though (a) premises and conclusion are all false, and (b) the premises are false and the conclusion is true. To avoid a classroom riot, I then point out that arguments with false premises should not be taken seriously, as they would persuade no one—which hasn’t stopped AOC or Bernie Sanders from making such arguments, or low information voters from believing them.

Misleading Information

Information can be misleading by being vague (the meaning is loose or unclear) or by being ambiguous (there may be multiple meanings or interpretations). Arguments based on vague or ambiguous information are logically fallacious and thus worthless. Vagueness and ambiguity must be eliminated before information can be taken seriously; otherwise the result is another house of cards—which hasn’t stopped AOC or Bernie, etc.

Uncorroborated or Unverifiable Information

We may as well lump these together because, logically speaking, they amount to the same thing.  Yes, conclusions can be validly drawn from these kinds of information but they should not be taken seriously for the same reason that the conclusions of unsound arguments should not be taken seriously—which hasn’t stopped AOC or Bernie, etc.

So, what would have been left of the evidential base had information in all of (a)-(e) been deleted? I have no idea. Should all such information have been deleted before going forward to the FISA court? Absolutely. Was it done? I don’t know.

Perhaps Mr. Mueller can be persuaded to appear before cameras again and clear all this up. Go ahead, sir, convince the nation that your investigation passed Logic 101. Unless your report can do that, it belongs in the trash can.

Image credit: YouTube screen grab.

A frequent contributor to American Thinker, Arnold Cusmariu holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Brown University. He plans to publish his book Logic for Kids, at Amazon Kindle soon. The book makes a complex subject comprehensible even to elementary school children.