POSSIBLE AND IMPOSSIBLE
An essay addressing the question:
Do these concepts retain anything of their original meaning and purpose?
The Hidden Fallacy of “Anything Is Possible”
If one were asked the question, do you think it is true “Anything is possible?” most people would agree there are two main choices, “yes” or “no”, and most would choose “yes.” The saying has been a powerful motivator for so long now it’s become a standardized axiom we all love. Yet from the point of view of logic, it is necessarily false. It is not true than anything is possible for two main reasons:
1) The large number of examples that can be imagined involving tasks that are impossible to perform. Ask a person: can you jump to the moon? Can you travel through the center of the sun? Can an ant jump over an elephant?
2) The logical sequence that displays the hidden fallacy. It does not matter if the reader answers “yes” or “no” to the question “Is anything possible?” because both lead one to the same conclusion that demonstrates the statement “Anything is possible” must be false.
To illustrate the point, let us substitute one related question for another and ask: “Is it possible for something to be impossible?” Now let us imagine two individuals taking opposite points of view. They both believe that “Anything is possible” is a true statement, but on the second substituted question, they take opposite points of view.
The first person responds: “No, it is not possible for something to be impossible.” This is logically consistent; having already committed to the view that “Anything is possible”, he or she is sticking with the view that “impossible” does not exist.
“A” for effort, “F” for logic.
The second person, not to be outdone but sensing a trap, tries a different answer and agrees: “Yes, it is possible for something to be impossible.” This person also feels that consistency is being maintained, since he or she has remained loyal to the original notion that “Anything is possible” even at the cost of admitting “impossible” things must be possible, too.
This person is as wrong as the first: “A” for effort, “F” for logic. Let us see why.
Analysis of the first person’s answer:
“Is it possible for something to be impossible?” The first person answered “No.”
That being the case, the person has contradicted the original postulate by finding an example wherein something is not possible. This denies the statement that “Anything is possible”, which happens whenever a person finds even one example where the postulate is not true. In short, if it is not possible for something to be impossible, the original postulate falls flat. That is the only conclusion left when the first person concedes that “it is not possible for something to be impossible.”
Postulate: “Anything is possible.”
Question: “Is it possible for something to be impossible?”
Answer: “No, it is not possible for something to be impossible.”
Summary: The answer logically contradicts the postulate.
Analysis of the second person’s answer:
“Is it possible for something to be impossible?” The second person answered “Yes.”
That being the case, the person has contradicted the original postulate by conceding that the possibility of something being impossible really does exist. Although the person may wish to argue that by saying “Yes” he or she has remained properly consistent with the original postulate, the effort is too late and undermines its own claim. To concede that “something is impossible” is to contradict the statement that “Anything is possible”; it acknowledges that such a statement is, in fact, not always true.
Postulate: “Anything is possible.”
Question: “Is it possible for something to be impossible?”
Answer: “Yes, it is possible for something to be impossible.”
Summary: The answer logically contradicts the postulate.
Regarding this famous statement, then, and its substitute question, it does not matter if the person answers “yes” or “no” since in both instances, either answer must lead us to one and only one conclusion: that the original postulate is false.
The statement “Anything is possible” cannot be sustained as a truthful assertion, as simple logic demonstrates.
However (#1), before the writer is accused of being a mumbling grinch, he concedes that this particular postulate in most social contexts is nevertheless conceived of as exerting a positive influence. As a motivating statement, there’s lots of good to be derived from the way parents, teachers, and mentors impart this positive outlook to the young. Sure, I get it and so does everybody else: tell the young “Anything is possible! Dream big! Go for the gold! Don’t ever give up! You can do it!”
Such positive forms of encouragement and support may well play a huge role in building the self-confidence, enthusiasm, and achievements of countless numbers of young people. That’s all well and good–you get no argument from me on that account!
However (#2), as a commentary on the ability of people to think logically, it’s shocking how often this platitudinous statement is taken at face value. At a glance, it must be immediately apparent that the statement proves false as soon as one asks a simple question: “Is it possible for something to be impossible?” And yet, we overlook the resulting contradiction that is revealed in favor of the postulate’s “feel good” appeal.
Since we want our young people to think critically and truthfully and logically, are we doing them any favors by allowing such statements to stand unchallenged, when the simplest use of logic calls for a further round of discussion? Whether our collective decision to sacrifice logic for semantic illusion is ultimately beneficial for society or not, remains to be seen.
I’m guessing we lose more than we gain by not encouraging our students to think more deeply and independently for themselves; only time will tell whether the young people will ever be able to re-examine the proposition that “Anything is possible” on their own but the fact that it is false, even though nearly all of us accept it as true, must surely give us pause!
