Lactivists seem to have a lot of difficulty with basic reading comprehension. No matter how firmly I write — no matter how blunt I am, no matter how small and simple the words I use:
“I believe X.”
lactivists routinely respond with:
“So what you’re saying is Y.”
No, if I wanted to say Y, I would say it and I didn’t say it.
Part of the problem is that lactivists love the strawman fallacy:
You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
It’s very difficult to rebut most of the arguments I make about breastfeeding. That’s why lactation professionals don’t even bother to try. Lay lactivists strenuously attempt to misrepresent my arguments instead since it is easier to rebut the misrepresentations.
If p then q; if not q then not p.
But the bigger problem for most lay lactivists is that they don’t understand basic logic. They don’t understand how conditional statements, (if p then q), are constructed and what they mean.
The most common conditional statement I make, the one that undergirds most of what I write about breastfeeding is this:
IF breastfeeding had the benefits claimed for it (If p)
THEN we should see a drop in term infant mortality, severe morbidity and healthcare costs when breastfeeding rates rise. (then q).
According to the rules of basic logic, if the conditional statement (if p then q) is true the contrapositive (if not q then not p) is also true.
The contrapositive is this:
IF we don’t see a drop in term infant mortality, severe morbidity and healthcare costs when breastfeeding rates rise (Not q)
THEN breastfeeding doesn’t have the benefits claimed for it. (then not p).
It’s pretty simple: If p then q. If not q then not p.
It’s basic logic.
Instead of responding to the straightforward argument, lactivists prefer bizarrely illogical claims.
1. You hate p! (You hate breastfeeding!) I don’t, but even if I did, that doesn’t change the truth of the underlying statements.
2. Corporations profit from r! (Corporations profit from formula!) Maybe so, but r has nothing to do with if not q then not p. The fact that companies profit from formula does not change the fact that if the predicted benefits of breastfeeding don’t occur, then breastfeeding doesn’t have those benefits.
3. You’re being paid by the folks from r! (You are being paid by formula companies!) This is just a variation of 2. I’m not being paid by anyone, but even if I were, that would not change the fundamentals of basic logic: if p then q; if not q then not p.
4. You want everyone to use r! (You want everyone to formula feed). This is yet another variation of 2. It’s particularly illogical. Why should I care? I breastfed my four children. It also tells us nothing about p and q.
5. But 100% of women aren’t engaged in p! (But not all women breastfeed!). Makes no difference. If p then q does not require a specific proportion of people to be engaged in p.
6. But the World Health Organization says p always leads to q! (But the WHO says breastfeeding has lots of important benefits!) Basic logic is not dependent on authorities and can’t be changed by the pronouncements of authorities.
7. But I love p! (But I love breastfeeding!) Maybe so and perhaps p is a significant source of self-esteem because you believe if p then q. But that doesn’t change the rules of basic logic, either.
The bottom line is pretty simple: if p then q; if not q then not p. If we can’t find the benefits claimed for breastfeeding, it doesn’t have those benefits.
If you want to rebut my arguments, you need to find evidence that the predicted benefits of breastfeeding actually occur when breastfeeding rates rise in large populations.
If you wail that I hate breastfeeding or that the WHO claims breastfeeding has benefits, or that I must be on the take from formula companies you haven’t merely failed to rebut my argument, you’ve failed to understand basic logic.
