In my post on why mass surveillance is not normal, I referenced how the Wikipedia page for the Nothing to hide argument labels the argument as a "logical fallacy." On October 19th, user Gratecznik edited the Wikipedia page to remove the "logical fallacy" text. I am here to prove that the "Nothing to hide" argument is indeed a logical fallacy and go through some arguments against it.
The "Nothing to hide" argument is an intuitive but misleading argument, stating that if a person has done nothing unethical, unlawful, immoral, etc., then there is no reason to hide any of their actions or information. However, this argument has been well covered already and debunked many times (here is one example).
Besides the cost of what it takes for someone to never hide anything, there are many reasons why a person may not want to share information about themselves, even if no misconduct has taken place. The "Nothing to hide" argument intuitively (but not explicitly) assumes that those whom you share your information with will handle it with care and not falsely use it against you. Unfortunately, that is not how it currently works in the real world.
You don't get to make the rules on what is and is not deemed unlawful. Something you do may be ethical or moral, but unlawful and could cost you if you aren't able to hide those actions. For example, whistleblowers try to expose government misconduct. That is an ethical and moral goal, but it does not align with government interests. Therefor, if the whistleblower is not able to hide their actions, they will have reason to fear the government or other parties. The whistleblower has something to hide, even though it is not unethical or immoral.
You are likely not a whistleblower, so you have nothing to hide, right? As stated before, you don't get to make the rules on what is and is not deemed unlawful. Anything you say or do could be used against you. Having a certain religion or viewpoint may be legal now, but if one day those become outlawed, you will have wished you hid it.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean it is justified to share everything. Privacy is a basic human right (at least until someone edits Wikipedia to say otherwise), so you shouldn't be forced to trust whoever just because you have nothing to hide.
For completeness, here is a proof that the "Nothing to hide" argument is a logical fallacy by using propositional calculus:
Let p be the proposition "I have nothing to hide"
Let q be the proposition "I should not be concerned about surveillance"
You can represent the "Nothing to hide" argument as follows:
p → q
I will be providing a proof by counterexample. Suppose p is true, but q is false (i.e. "I have nothing to hide" and "I am concerned about surveillance"):
p ∧ ¬q
Someone may have nothing to hide, but still be concerned about the state of surveillance. Since that is a viable scenario, we can conclude that the "Nothing to hide" argument is invalid (a logical fallacy).
I know someone is going to try to rip that proof apart. If anyone is an editor on Wikipedia, please revert the edit that removed the "logical fallacy" text, as it provides a very easy and direct way for people to cite that the "Nothing to hide" argument is false.
Thanks for reading!
- The 8232 Project
You made the same leap that OP did.
No, it’s not. That’s what I’m calling out. This doesn’t follow from A or B and requires further definition. While you’re using to explain case b, OP tried to use it to explain case c. In both cases, you are assuming some sort of framework that allows you to build these truth tables from real life. That’s where my ask for a consistent formal system comes from.
In your case b, we have not(I have something to hide) and (I am not concerned about surveillance). Since OP is not saying that the two are necessary and sufficient, we don’t really care. However, in your case c, where we have I have nothing to hide and not(I am not concerned about surveillance), both of you say we are logically allowed to force that to make sense. It’s now an axiom that A and not B cannot be; it has not come from within our proof or our formal system. We waved our hands and said there’s no way for that to happen. Remember, we started with the assumption we could prove A -> B by negation, not that A -> B was guaranteed.
If you’ll notice my last paragraph in my first post basically says the same thing your last paragraph says.
Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia
Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia
How so?
It is rather that the fact that people who do have something to hide will probably use encryption cannot be refuted by an instance of someone using encryption without having something to hide.
This is textbook modus ponens, sorry if you find that disturbing.
This is unproductive and eventually relativistic. I can't fathom how you dare bring advanced topics of math/logic fundamentals in a discussion like this. We are talking the kind of stuff that takes 200 pages to prove 1 + 1 = 2, and why it is not correct, or absolute. What is the purpose of that level of meta in a discussion about flipping privacy?
OP said that, given A and B, they would prove A -> B via negation, meaning the truth table you built does not yet exist and must be proved.
OP is not trying to use language, OP is trying to use propositional calculus. Using language unattached to propositional calculus is meaningless in this context.
No, it’s not. Textbook modus ponens is when you are given A -> B. We are given A and B and are trying to prove A -> B. Never in any of my reading have I ever seen someone say “We want to prove A -> B ergo given A and B, A -> B.” I mean, had I graded symbolic logic papers, I probably would have because it’s a textbook mistake to write a proof that just has the conclusion with none of the work. As the in group, we may assume A -> B in this situation; OP was taking some new tools they’ve picked up and applying them to something OP appears passionate about to prove our assumptions.
I was responding to OP. Why are you getting mad at me instead of getting mad at OP? OP brought propositional logic to a relativistic conversation. My goal was show why that’s a bad idea. You have proven my point incredibly well.
Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia
Still failing to see that we aren't proving A -> B, but getting its truth value within a proof.
I think your goal was the equivalent of what any postmodernist does in deconstructing any given field:
By the same coin, all the other logical fallacies go out of the window, together with boolean logic and what have you. Even the valid ones.
Reread OP. All you did was provide a truth table that is necessary but not sufficient. Given A and given B, with literally nothing else, prove A -> B.
Now this is a logical fallacy. While many might agree it’s a proper response to Quine or Kripke, I think it’s just kinda sad. Good luck!
Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia
Quine is the most sane person among your lot. And righteously followed by Thomas Kuhn.
That was never the task at hand. You are projecting your belief system so hard you cannot even parse the arguments at a functional level. Yet, after an hour or so, suddenly 4 more vote me down, and only in this particular thread. (Since the rest of the comments in the whole post are unaffected, even mine? What the fuck did you go to your philosophy of science SimpleX chat and called for back up?
Pathetic.
For the last time The truth table does not mean that A->B is "proven". Obviously you have never done propositional calculus on pen and paper, because this misconception is literally worse than OP's ravings.
I stand by the comment. Bringing up Gödel in polite conversation should go straight to the site-wide banable offenses.
This attempt to patronize is futile. You proved you were in bad faith, and I wish not to continue this discussion.
You didn’t read OP, regularly refused back anything up, and came in with ad hominem. When others vote in a way that disagrees with you, you claim a conspiracy. I think the only person here acting in bad faith is you. I have tried to expand OP’s understanding of their proposal and you have only attacked people. You have attempted to insult me multiple times. Granted, I did take a swipe at you begging the question, so you could argue some bad faith was merited, but you saying I’ve never done logic while missing me explaining to you the point you’re suddenly trying to make (“necessary but not sufficient”) continues the poor student metaphor.
I’m sorry you found “good luck” to be patronizing. Does “have fun” work?
Modus Ponens Justification by Truth Table Wikipedia
From your source, we must first have P -> Q. You have not demonstrated that. Sure, if we assume that P -> Q, then P -> Q. That’s a tautology. OP’s goal is to prove P -> Q. I’ve said this multiple times as did OP. Your consistent sharing of a truth table is a necessary condition for P -> Q but it is not sufficient. If P -> Q, then the truth table is valid. That’s modus ponens. You still gotta show (or assume like you have been) that P -> Q.
To quote OP,
In other words, P -> Q is an unproven hypothesis. If P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. If we assume P -> Q, then your truth table is correct. But propositional calculus unfortunately requires we prove things, not just show things that will be true if our original assumption is true.
With all due respect, get your head out of your arse and read this from what I posted:
Emphasis is mine. I cannot scream hard enough to get this simple message across to your flipping head. You are reading it wrong, and if you had done one class of prepositional calculus you would have known, therefore you haven't.
As for your foundationalist pursuits, most of science advances without getting back to the foundations, just as calculus was in practical use long before it was formally proven. So you see a person (OP) struggling with basic conception and composition of his argument, let alone the formal expression, and you raise the bar to the level of logical foundations of mathematics? If not dishonest, this is utterly unproductive.
Sure! Let’s go back to foundations. The foundation of modus ponens is, quoting your source,
In order for this to work, we must have both P -> Q and P. Will you please quote OP that shows we have P -> Q, as I have asked from the beginning, instead of making personal attacks? Alternatively, if I’m missing something in my foundations, such as “P -> Q can always be assumed in any basic symbolic context without proof,” educate me. As you have bolded, we can use modus ponens if and only if (necessary and sufficient) we have its requirements. If we don’t, per your source, we cannot use it to prove anything.
No one is attempting to prove bleeding P->Q here.
Sure, and when ~P^Q, then P->Q is still not false, and you can further use it in a proof, in the context of other given statements.
This was never presented as a method to show that P->Q, which arguably can only be shown with data.
Perhaps this is our fundamental misunderstanding! I am operating under these statements
In my opinion, everything after this is OP’s proof, ie we have no given statements ergo you calling out modus ponens is meaningless because, from our foundations, we could theoretically have ~P^Q, P^~Q, ~P^~Q, and P^Q. Our foundation provides no context on how P and Q interact, and, as both of us state, albeit for different reasons, we cannot conclude anything about their interaction.