Logical Bias

The fallacy of believing that a conclusion derived from a formally valid logical structure is necessarily true or meaningful in the real world. This bias venerates the syntactic correctness of an argument while being blind to the factual inaccuracy of its premises or its deliberate abstraction from reality. Perfect logic, perfectly wrong.

Example: "Premise 1: All birds can fly. Premise 2: A penguin is a bird. Conclusion: Therefore, penguins can fly." The logical bias is the insistence that the airtight logic of the syllogism somehow challenges biological reality, or that pointing out the false premise is "cheating" at the logical game. Form is prized over substance.

by Dumu The Void February 9, 2026

Theory of Secret Logic

The belief that there is a hidden, coherent logic behind seemingly irrational systems, events, or behaviors, and that understanding this secret logic would reveal that everything actually makes sense—just not in the way obvious to casual observers. Proponents of the theory of secret logic argue that conspiracy theorists aren't wrong; they're just using a different logical framework, one that connects dots that mainstream logic refuses to see. The theory is popular among people who find the universe too chaotic to bear and need to believe that behind the randomness, there's a pattern—even if that pattern is malevolent, absurd, or designed by aliens who really care about our crop circles.

Example: "He subscribed to the theory of secret logic, believing that every government action, no matter how incompetent, was part of a master plan. When a bridge collapsed due to neglected maintenance, he saw not incompetence but a deliberate plot to justify infrastructure spending. The secret logic was always more interesting than the boring truth, and also completely made up."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Logical Double Standards

The meta-fallacy of applying different logical standards to different participants in a discussion, typically demanding impeccable reasoning from your opponent while allowing yourself hand-waving, gut feelings, and outright contradictions. Logical double standards are the rhetorical equivalent of a tennis match where one player's shots must land inside the lines and the other's can land anywhere in the county. This fallacy is how someone can demand "proof" for climate change while accepting election fraud claims based on a single Facebook post, or require their opponent to cite peer-reviewed studies while offering their own opinions as self-evident truth. The double standard is invisible to the person wielding it, which is what makes it so effective and so infuriating.

Example: "The logical double standards were staggering. She had to provide sources for every claim; he could say 'everyone knows' and it was accepted. She had to address every point; he could ignore hers and repeat his. When she pointed out the double standard, he said that was just her opinion. The standards weren't double; they were whatever allowed him to feel right."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Theory of Logical Hegemony

The critical theory proposing that dominant groups maintain power not just through force or economics, but through control over what counts as "logical" in the first place. According to this theory, the rules of logic aren't universal and neutral—they're tools of hegemony, designed to privilege certain ways of thinking while marginalizing others. Western logic (non-contradiction, excluded middle, linear reasoning) becomes the standard against which all other reasoning is judged, making indigenous epistemologies, feminine modes of thought, and non-Western philosophies appear "illogical" simply because they operate by different rules. The theory of logical hegemony explains why "that doesn't make sense" often really means "that doesn't fit my cultural framework," and why marginalized groups are constantly forced to translate their experiences into dominant logical forms to be heard.

Example: "She invoked the theory of logical hegemony when her professor dismissed indigenous knowledge as 'unscientific.' 'You're not evaluating their logic,' she said. 'You're imposing yours. The hegemony of Western rationality decides what counts as knowledge, and everything else gets called myth.' The professor said she was being relativistic. She said he was being hegemonic. Neither convinced the other, but she felt better for naming it."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Theory of Logical Paradigms

The meta-theoretical framework proposing that logic itself operates within paradigms—historically situated frameworks that determine what counts as valid reasoning, what counts as evidence, and what counts as a conclusion. Just as scientific paradigms shift (Newton to Einstein), logical paradigms shift too, meaning that what was perfectly logical in one era becomes questionable in the next. The theory of logical paradigms explains why medieval scholars could logically prove the existence of God using premises everyone accepted, while modern logicians reject those same proofs as unsound. It's not that logic changed; it's that the paradigm within which logic operates shifted, taking the ground rules with it. Understanding logical paradigms means recognizing that your ironclad argument might be ironclad only within a framework that others don't share.

Example: "He tried to win an argument with his religious grandmother using modern scientific logic. She responded with logic from her paradigm—scripture, tradition, revelation. He cited studies; she cited Psalms. Neither was irrational; they were operating in different logical paradigms. The theory of logical paradigms explained the impasse but didn't resolve it. They agreed to disagree, which was the only logical move available."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Paraconsistent Logic

A branch of logic that allows contradictions to exist without exploding the entire system—unlike classical logic, where a single contradiction allows you to prove anything (the principle of explosion). Paraconsistent logic acknowledges that real-world information is often contradictory: eyewitnesses disagree, scientific studies conflict, and your phone's terms of service both grant and restrict rights simultaneously. Instead of treating contradiction as catastrophic, paraconsistent logic develops frameworks that can tolerate inconsistency, extract useful information, and reason productively even when premises don't perfectly align. It's the logic of living with cognitive dissonance, managing competing priorities, and still managing to function despite the fundamental contradictions of existence.

*Example: "She used paraconsistent logic to navigate her job. The company claimed to value work-life balance while expecting 60-hour weeks. Classical logic would say these can't both be true, leading to resignation or breakdown. Paraconsistent logic allowed her to hold both, notice the contradiction, and still show up Monday. The system was broken; she worked anyway. The contradiction didn't destroy her; she just lived with it."*

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Non-Consistent Logic

The meta-logical framework that doesn't even try to maintain consistency, embracing contradiction as a fundamental feature rather than a bug. Non-consistent logic observes that human reasoning, natural language, and real-world systems are riddled with contradictions that we navigate daily without issue. You can believe in free will and determinism simultaneously, hold political views that don't perfectly align, and love someone while being angry at them. Non-consistent logic doesn't resolve these contradictions; it just notes that they exist and that reasoning continues anyway. It's the logic of "I contain multitudes," of holding two opposing ideas in mind without losing the ability to function, of being okay with not making sense.

Example: "He explained non-consistent logic to his therapist: 'I both want to be in this relationship and want to leave. I'm committed and ambivalent. I love her and resent her. These aren't contradictions to resolve; they're just what I feel.' The therapist said that sounded like being human. He said that was non-consistent logic—the logic of being a person, which is never as tidy as a syllogism."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026