He was in LOGIC a great critic, Profoundly skill'd in analytic; He could distinguish, and divide A hair 'twixt south, and south-west side: On either which he would dispute, Confute, change hands, and still confute, He'd undertake to prove, by force Of argument, a man's no horse; He'd prove a buzzard is no fowl, And that a lord may be an owl, A calf an alderman, a goose a justice, And rooks Committee-men and Trustees.
About this quote
- What does it mean?
- A man is described as overly pedantic in logic, able to split hairs and prove absurdities.
- In plain terms
- He is so skilled at arguing he can prove nonsense is true.
- What can you take from it?
- Excessive focus on logic can lead to absurd conclusions.
Where it applies
Putting it to work
Questions to consider
- When does being right become being wrong?
- How do you spot fake expertise?
Another view
Precision is valuable but not when it loses the point.
More from Samuel Butler
When civil fury first grew high, And men fell out, they knew not why; When hard words, jealousies, and fears, Set folks together by the ears, And made them fig…
Permalink to quote #2 For rhetoric, he could not ope His mouth, but out there flew a trope; And when he happen'd to break off I' th' middle of his speech, or cough, H' had hard word…
Permalink to quote #4 There are more fools than knaves in the world, else the knaves would not have enough to live upon.
Permalink to quote #1
Related quotes
'Logic is invincible because in order to combat logic it is necessary to use logic.'
Pierre BoutrouxPierre Boutroux quote #1 'Great-grandfather died under strange circumstances. He opened a vein in his bath.' 'I never knew baths had veins,' protested Gabrilowitsch.' 'I never knew his…
S. J. PerelmanS. J. Perelman quote #2 Right is not right; so is not so. If right were really right it would differ so clearly from not right that there would be no need for argument. If so were rea…
ZhuangziZhuangzi quote #3