Common nonsense

This article begins with truth quality in math then switches to talking about illogical people. Misleading someone intentionally is lying. Saying you'll do something if something does/doesn't happen and not doing what you say under the conditions is lying. Literary fallacies are real. Induction and deduction logic applied in math, when applied to English, can be fallacious. Assuming that the truth value of a math statement is the same as a statement in language is a terrible mistake.

This is a common mistake by computer folks. They treat English as a formal language, and ignore subtext and context when trying to draw inferences. People aren't as stupid as robots say they are, they use a sophisticated pattern matching and contextual fuzzy logic that our computers are only just starting to be competitive at.

I remember puzzling over the mathematical definition of "implies" in first year CS. I understand why it is defined the way it is in the context of mathematical logic, but I always puzzled at a deeper issue: when were we going to learn how connect symbolic logic to reality? Combining the truth values of P and Q seemed relatively straightforward. But how did you work out those truth values in the first place? How did ambigous words apply to a complex reality?

I later found out that Aristotelian logic held the answers, and modern symbolic logic was a weird set of mathematical formalisms that wrenched out one part of classical logic (propositions) but omitted the theory of terms (concepts), without which, logic becomes a system of meaningless symbol games. This is the book that showed me a world of logic both perfectly rigorous and perfectly descriptive of human cognition: https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology... (if the author's name triggers you, obviously this book is not for you, but if you enjoy far-out intellectual adventures, you'll be in for a mind-blowing ride).

Again, politicians and advertisers, not to mention religious leaders and parents who don't like to be questioned will continue to oppose anything which empowers children with the skills and tools to think critically.

Our society needs to learn the basics of reasoning, stat!

This is what happens when you generalize expertise from your field to other fields.