# Logical Consistency Forces Taking a Position [We Must Seek Good Explanations](We%20Must%20Seek%20Good%20Explanations.md). In order to arrive at a good [Explanation](Explanations.md), one's argument must be [Logically Consistent](Logical%20Consistency.md). This often means one is [Forced To Take a Position](Forced%20To%20Take%20a%20Position.md) based on some observation. For example, consider Dr Johnson's [Refutation of Solipsism](Dr%20Johnsons%20Criteria.md#Refutation%20of%20Solipsism). When he kicks the rock he observes it has some effect on him. In order to *explain* this effectively he is [Forced To Take a Position](Forced%20To%20Take%20a%20Position.md) on the nature of rocks: were they part of external reality, or figments of his imagination? But *why* exactly was he [Forced To Take a Position](Forced%20To%20Take%20a%20Position.md)? What *forced* him to do so? [Logical Consistency](Logical%20Consistency.md) is what forced him to do so. If he were to claim that the rock was part of external reality *and* figments of his imagination, this would be logically *[Inconsistent](Inconsistent.md)*. He has no choice but to claim one of the following two things: 1. The rock is part of external reality ($A$) 2. The rock is *not* part of external reality ($\neg A$) This is actually one of the most powerful aspects of [Logic](Logic.md), namely how it handles *dichotomies*. The [Law of the Excluded Middle](Law%20of%20the%20Excluded%20Middle.md) states that proposition must either be true or false. There is no in between. --- Date: 20241224 Links to: Tags: References: * []()