Misconceptions And Refutations: The Need To Point Out The Irrelevant

There are always logical truths about any given matter that can be reasoned out without anything more than mere contemplation, but there are many false ideas that need to be refuted using points that would not otherwise need to be brought up at all.  Not every knowable truth would be naturally brought to one's attention, and this is not because each person needs others in order to learn logical truths.  It is because these specific types of truths are about various relationships between ideas that only need to be mentioned to refute random fallacious claims.  In establishing logical facts, all notions to the contrary are disproven, and thus the only reason to bring up the particular reasons why certain objections are false is to refute someone else's misconceptions.

For example, one would never need to specifically reflect on or point out that there is no correlation between the sun's appearance in the sky and foot pain, that a picture of a woman's body that does not show her head is not objectifying, or that the concept of Christian theonomy is not inherently connected to presuppositionalism or Calvinism--unless, of course, these false assertions were actually made by someone else.  I have only seen the latter two claims get made, but even the first exemplifies the type of truth in question.  All three have no particular reason to be acknowledged apart from conversation with an irrational person who insists on their opposites.

Each of these logical truths can be realized without the need for someone to propose a fallacious idea in order to prompt a refutation involving a specific truth, but there would be no particular reason to seek them out or recognize them except as a response to someone else's errors.  This does not reflect poorly on the intellectual ability and autonomy of anyone who would not specifically realize the points mentioned in the above paragraph precisely because, left to themselves, no one would ever have the need to think about them at all.

Many truths can be and are recognized by thoughtful seekers of truth apart from conversation with others.  Some truths simply do not fall into this category.  Would anyone ever need to contemplate how grass and whales in particular are separate things unless prompted by someone else?  Would anyone ever need to specify that two wholly unrelated ideas are in fact unrelated unless someone has mistakenly associated them?  Outside of a situation in which a misconception needs to be refuted, there is no such need.  Not all logical truths are naturally discovered by rationalistic minds when there is no exposure to fallacious or erroneous claims.