Logic

[jverne]

here is a detailed desctription:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

i'm just curious. on the page in the beginning it says:

"It's worth mentioning a couple of things which logic is not.

Firstly, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.

Secondly, logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. For example:

*

John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.
*

The person in charge is Steve.
*

Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.

Unfortunately, John may have a conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the reasoned answer may be inapplicable to real life.

This document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job. There are other ways to communicate, discuss and debate."

so i'm wondering can an argument be 100% logical? i think you can never come to the bottom of it. there is always something you forgot that has the potential to render your argument illogical.

there are good or bad arguments, i agree. but whats in the end? which is better? who is the judge for it?

i think that every debate that isn't about mathematics has a substantial amount of systematicaly integrated fallacies.

this is not a flame thread, i'm just curious what is your position on logic?







btw...i'm sure "somebody" wil have lots to say

 

[sinkoman]

You're not going to get this stickied like the "fallacy thread", that's for sure.

Though you do seem to be expecting it.

 

[jverne]

You're not going to get this stickied like the "fallacy thread", that's for sure.

Though you do seem to be expecting it.

nope...i'm not expecting it.

are you implying that i'm trying to beat mecha?

 

[sinkoman]

nope...i'm not expecting it.

are you implying that i'm trying to beat mecha?

Well, I wasn't implying it, but rather I suspected it.

Now you're pre-emptively defensive, and i'm positive you are.

 

[jverne]

Well, I wasn't implying it, but rather I suspected it.

Now you're pre-emptively defensive, and i'm positive you are.

your suspicion is wrong.

i'm just gettin peoples POV as i previously stated.

 

[sinkoman]

your suspicion is wrong.

i'm just gettin peoples POV as i previously stated.

Well, here's mine.

Arguments aren't always logical. There is no rule stating that an argument must be logical.

Personally, I believe you can bend logic and hypocricy when you are arguing in your benefit, but when defending, you should try to keep everything as logical (boolean wise) as possible.

 

[Raziaar]

My arguments are often illogical, outlandish, and flat out unsubstantiated.

:cheese:

 

[jverne]

Well, here's mine.

Arguments aren't always logical. There is no rule stating that an argument must be logical.

Personally, I believe you can bend logic and hypocricy when you are arguing in your benefit, but when defending, you should try to keep everything as logical (boolean wise) as possible.

fair enough.

is bending logic, illogical?

 

[Raziaar]

fair enough.

is bending logic, illogical?

It's dangerous. You never know when it'll snap back and hit you in the face.

 

[jverne]

lets presume that bending logic is illogical. therfore the attacker is from the beginning illogical. so basicaly he failed at the very start.

but the question is what exactly is logical and who can tell if someone is being illogical?


by web definitions:

"However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments."

so if that is true, i repeat, IF that is true, than logic is hanging on a thin rope. because nobody can be unbiased, and the very information we use (such as statistic) is biased.

the only thing that is less biased is mathemathics, because it deals with studying natural laws not making them (imho).

but then again to what extent does a natural law go?

 

[sinkoman]

lets presume that bending logic is illogical. therfore the attacker is from the beginning illogical. so basicaly he failed at the very start.

but the question is what exactly is logical and who can tell if someone is being illogical?

Nobody can tell you, logically, what is and isn't logical.

By nature, anything can be logical, if you're going by boolean logic.

And Raziaar, that's exactly it. You've gotta be careful when you chose to bend logic, and do it only when you already have a significant advantage in the argument.

If you start twisting logic in your advantage while on the defense, there's really no sense in defending now is there?

 

[jverne]

Nobody can tell you, logically, what is and isn't logical.

By nature, anything can be logical, if you're going by boolean logic.

so therefore? we living beings cannot be logical, because we don't know what logic is? so if somebody is not logical then he is illogcal, right?

 

[sinkoman]

so therefore? we living beings cannot be logical, because we don't know what logic is? so if somebody is not logical then he is illogcal, right?

If you ask me, being "not logical" doesn't make you "illogical".

Illogical (not sure about definition), as I see it used, is anti logical. You skew your own logical.

My statement that "nothing is logical" is just a boolean logic statement. Of course there is logic and anti-logic, but what I was trying to say was that you can skew anything to become logical.

 

[jverne]

If you ask me, being "not logical" doesn't make you "illogical".

Illogical (not sure about definition), as I see it used, is anti logical. You skew your own logical.

My statement that "nothing is logical" is just a boolean logic statement. Of course there is logic and anti-logic, but what I was trying to say was that you can skew anything to become logical.

hmm..but if you skew illogic to logic than isn't this still illogical for the "universe"? it's only logical for those who listen?!

i'm thinking that if making shit look nice it's still shit in essence? it just looks nice to us.

 

[sinkoman]

hmm..but if you skew illogic to logic than isn't this still illogical for the "universe"? it's only logical for those who listen?!

i'm thinking that if making shit look nice it's still shit in essence? it just looks nice to us.

Not true.

Bad analogy on your part. It's more like, shit is squishy and everything can go right through it. But, you can put a brick wall behind your shit and nothing can go through it.

Here, it's "you can make anything logical with nonsensical supporting evidence".

It's stupid, but it's still logical (as there is no "universal anti-logic").

Example:

I find a parking space. It's 5 blocks away from the picnic in the park that i'm trying to get to. I see a parking space in the distance, only a couple feet from the picnic.

I say outloud "Damn, could have gotten that one, but now it's going to take me so long to get the the stall, that it'll be taken by the time I get there".

Immediately after, I drive off and try to take the parking space, which is promptly taken by a huge SUV.

You say "that was illogical of you to do. You even proved to yourself why trying to get to the spot would have been a bad idea".

I could reply "No, it wasn't illogical. I wanted to go for a liesure drive."

It's stupid, it's non-sensical, but it isn't illogical.

 

[jverne]

Not true.

Bad analogy on your part. It's more like, shit is squishy and everything can go right through it. But, you can put a brick wall behind your shit and nothing can go through it.

Here, it's "you can make anything logical with nonsensical supporting evidence".

It's stupid, but it's still logical (as there is no "universal anti-logic").

Example:

I find a parking space. It's 5 blocks away from the picnic in the park that i'm trying to get to. I see a parking space in the distance, only a couple feet from the picnic.

I say outloud "Damn, could have gotten that one, but now it's going to take me so long to get the the stall, that it'll be taken by the time I get there".

Immediately after, I drive off and try to take the parking space, which is promptly taken by a huge SUV.

You say "that was illogical of you to do. You even proved to yourself why trying to get to the spot would have been a bad idea".

I could reply "No, it wasn't illogical. I wanted to go for a liesure drive."

It's stupid, it's non-sensical, but it isn't illogical.

yes...maybe irrational would be a good word.

so basicaly you can never call someone illogical, but everything else instead?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Wait, what?

"If I try and get that parking space, I'll fail."
/me goes and tries anyway. /me fails
What the hell did you do that for, moron?
"I...er, leisure drive! Yes!"

How is retroactive justification logical exactly?

 

[Ludah]

Who in the **** ever said logic governs human behavior? Who said it was a universal law?

Logic is an immaterial human concept, not some natural constraining force. It is a school of thought of our creation that, despite its limitations, is pretty much the root of all science and rational discourse.

It's clear that you made this topic in response to the "Earthlings" one. Forget the focus on logic for a moment. Your arguments hold no water because you are making vast generalizations from but a few incidents. Anybody can see the massive flaws in such thinking, regardless of their familiarity with logic.

So in the end, I'm not seeing what this topic is trying to achieve. It certainly doesn't make your argumentation any less bogus.

 

[sinkoman]

Wait, what?

"If I try and get that parking space, I'll fail."
/me goes and tries anyway. /me fails
What the hell did you do that for, moron?
"I...er, leisure drive! Yes!"

How is retroactive justification logical exactly?

It's boolean logic.

Boolean logic, obviously sucks.

In the real world though, you'd call that illogical.

Logically though, it's logical.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Is it?

I mean, all you're doing in that example is lying.

 

[sinkoman]

Is it?

I mean, all you're doing in that example is lying.

I may be lying, but I still said it.

It's just an example that to show, by going off boolean logic, anything can be logical.

Fairies can be logical. In fairy land that is. As nonsensical as the two statements are, they still make each other logical.

 

[jverne]

Who in the **** ever said logic governs human behavior? Who said it was a universal law?

Logic is an immaterial human concept, not some natural constraining force. It is a school of thought of our creation that, despite its limitations, is pretty much the root of all science and rational discourse.

It's clear that you made this topic in response to the "Earthlings" one. Forget the focus on logic for a moment. Your arguments hold no water because you are making vast generalizations from but a few incidents. Anybody can see the massive flaws in such thinking, regardless of their familiarity with logic.

So in the end, I'm not seeing what this topic is trying to achieve. It certainly doesn't make your argumentation any less bogus.

emm...nobody!

yes i do agree that it's a school, and lets talk about these limitations. what are they and how it affects the credibitily of an argument?

yes i was inspired by people like you and others.
hmm...i think i shown much more evidence, than just some coincidences! you are free to read them.

no it's not a thread to make me more credible or logical, it's a debate about how humans interpret logic.

thing is i was playing (in the other thread) by your standards and still managed to be way more rational, logical and credible than you for instance.
it look like you just roam around and attacking people. nice

anyway back on topic.


so sinkoman is there some other type of logic we can use for debating. apparently boolean logic has a big flaw. because i can't just build my arguments on "real life" logic because it's not even defined.

so what is left?

 

[sinkoman]

so what is left?

Supporting your arguments with evidence and not being a twat.

 

[jverne]

Supporting your arguments with evidence and not being a twat.

oh...ok! but is the evidence logical? so yea it goes round and round...




off topic: so in the previous thread i posted quite an amount of evidence (it's there and is free to look), so that makes me logical by these standards?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"so i'm wondering can an argument be 100% logical?"

See, there you go again. You're presenting a classic Perfect Solution fallacy.

I'm not asking for 100% logic. I'm not even asking for 50% logic.
In almost any given thread all I want is one single point that makes rational sense - and people such as yourself refuse to provide them.
Such are the torturous machinations of the inflexible mind that, ironically, we end up consistently presented with metaphysical bullshit philosophy twisted into a half-assed defense of ignorance.

"Maybe all human knowledge is wrong and maybe life is all a dream or The Matrix and I can fly if I wish hard enough so let's just assume that everyone is equally stupid and therefore I am equally smart as Einstein."

Your source makes key mistakes in each argument - or maybe they are merely mistakes in your interpretation of the quotes. Either way, they are mistakes.

1 - "Logic isn't universal because knowledge is progressive: we may learn in the future that commonplace ideas are incomplete or incorrect."

Well, duh. Obviously human knowledge is incomplete, as science is ever-questioning.

How does this contradict logic though?

Logic isn't limited by the process of learning new things.
It is the process of learning new things.

Nor is it at any point inflexible to change.
Right now, it's logical to eat a turkey sandwich when you're hungry so you can live happy.
In 3 years when we kind out that turkey consumption causes instant brain cancer, it will be logical to throw the sandwich away so you can live happy.
The result changes, but the logic remains inerrably the same.
Logic (AKA science) is what would detect the carcinogen in the first place.

Euclidean Geometry is no different from the turkey sandwich. It works to the fullest extent humanly possible, but if there are errors, the logical reaction is to understand those errors and incorporate them into a greater body of knowledge.

The alternative you propose is that, if the turkey is carcinogenic, we should remove all the labels from food and just consume indiscriminately on the off chance that what you can't see can't harm.

Instead of detecting and filtering out bad information, you're willfully just going with whatever blind impulses fill your head.
If you believe everything equally (which is the invariable result of living without logic), you will always be technically "right" - at the cost of being constantly and horribly wrong in every possible way.

So why does the website say that logic isn't universal?
Because, logically, nothing is all-encompassing except the universe itself - and human stupidity.


2 - "Sometimes logical goals conflict."

Again: duh.

Proper logic always allows for multiple outcomes where such outcomes exist. It then chooses the most viable.

-John wishes to speak to whoever is in charge.
-The person in charge is Steve.
Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.

-John wishes to speak to Steve.
-John wishes to not speak to Steve.

Oh no! An utterly mundane problem!
LOGIC IS BROKEN, THE UNIVERSE IS MEANINGLESS.

No, wait.

The obvious logical answer when you have two unpleasant outcomes is always as follows:
-Choose the least unpleasant (or flip a coin if they are equally negative).
-Seek any third applicable option.

Therefore:
-John speaks to steve, even though it is unpleasant.
or
-John decides it is not worth speaking to Steve.
or
-John sends his friend Jimmy to speak for him.

UNIVERSE SAVED!

John had quite the predicament there, because he was dealing with a scenario without a fully "right" answer.

However, did John use that as an excuse to be extremely wrong? Like, say, murdering Steve?

No, because that's stupid. Murder doesn't solve the problem and just creates more problems.

Logic is designed to be flexible. That doesn't mean you can just abandon it entirely though, because that just creates more problems.
There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong and only a handful of ways to be right, so don't throw them out with the bathwater.
And you should take double care not to start drinking that same bathwater as though it were Chardonnay.


"thing is i was playing (in the other thread) by your standards and still managed to be way more rational, logical and credible than you for instance."

As everyone has repeatedly told you: you can only play by our standards if you understand, at least vaguely, what those standards are.

For example, one standard is that you use words properly.
So, don't describe yourself as logical/rational when you use repeated logical fallacies, and don't describe yourself as credible when apparently no-one believes you.

 

[Mr Stabby]

religion is based on logic...

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Actually, it isn't.
Remember what I said about the "metaphysical bullshit philosophy twisted into a half-assed defense of ignorance?"
Yeah.

Unless you mean in as a "system of societal control, opiate of the masses" kind of way?
Because it is an extremely efficient way to control large numbers of people.

 

[jverne]

For example, one standard is that you use words properly.
So, don't describe yourself as logical/rational when you use repeated logical fallacies, and don't describe yourself as credible when apparently no-one believes you.

easy there mecha nobody is trying to kill you, i just asked fo your point of view.

use word properly? i may not be a master in english, but does that make you instantly fallacious? anyway i would like to se these words that made my whole point invalid!

what more do you need mecha? i posted lots and lots of links (evidence), and you still call me illogical. i tried to use reason and not emotion and you call me illogical. i showed and argumented the mistakes where someone made a logicall fallacy. i ask you for some proof and you ignore it.

stop accusing me mecha if you can't (or won't) show my actuall mistakes and logical fallacies!

i suggest to everyone to go read the "Earthlings" thread and see for yourself who made more credible, evidented, reasonable, quoted posts. i showed people when somebody made a fallacy and they just continued bashing me without even reading...

You listed anecdotal evidence as a fallacy and then I stopped reading. There was no anecdotal evidence. You have no idea what you're typing out.

my opinion (not fact): you know what i think mecha? i th

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"i just asked fo your point of view."

You got it.

"use word properly? i may not be a master in english, but does that make you instantly fallacious?"

If you look at a square and say "this is round! this is round!" your argument isn't valid because the terms are incorrectly defined. It's the definition of wrong.
So when you make an illogical point and say "this is logical! this is logical!", are you correct?

"anyway i would like to se these words that made my whole point invalid!"

I already listed them: "logical", "rational" and "credible". By definition, you are being none of the above.

Since you aren't being logical, your argument isn't valid until you begin making logical points.

"what more do you need mecha? (1) i posted lots and lots of links (evidence), and you still call me illogical. (2) i tried to use reason and not emotion and you call me illogical. (3) i showed and argumented the mistakes where someone made a logicall fallacy. (4) i ask you for some proof and you ignore it."

1 - "lots and lots of links" isn't an argument. That's more of an argument from authority than anything.
Unless you are able to synthesize and/or summarize the actual content of those links into a valid point, there is no point in presenting them.

2 - "trying to use reason" is not the same as succeeding at using reason. Specifically, your last post in the thread in question contained an incorrect accusation of "Anecdotal Evidence" to counter a valid question.

Then you dismissed a common-knowledge point (the reported news is predominately negative) for no reason, in what I can only describe as a trivial objection.

Then you presented four unsummarized links, two of which were described, by yourself, as "propaganda".

3 - See above: trying and failing isn't the same as a success.

4 - We asked for a valid argument, of which evidence is a component. Evidence without argument is pointless.

"stop accusing me mecha if you can't (or won't) show my actuall mistakes and logical fallacies!"

That's easy: since I have repeatedly described logical fallacies you've used in both this (and the other) thread, the above claim that "I can't (or won't)" do so constitutes a Straw Man argument.


"i suggest to everyone to go read the "Earthlings" thread and see for yourself who made more credible, evidented, reasonable, quoted posts. i showed people when somebody made a fallacy and they just continued bashing me without even reading..."

If you get any supporters from showing them that thread, I will be deeply surprised.


"my opinion (not fact): you know what i think mecha? i think you don"

I think you don too, jverne.

 

[Qhartb]

Of course an arguement can be 100% logical. Such an arguement is called a mathematical proof and Euclid's Elements has some very good examples.

As far as things that apply to real life, still you can make 100% logical arguements, but you must assume premises that may or may not be true, since there's not a whole lot of absolute truths in the real world, at least not that apply to interesting things like finance, religeon or politics.

The examples in the first post had false premises such as "The science that we currently believe in is true." and "The universe is a Euclidean space." These premises weren't true, so if you apply them logically, they don't guarantee that you'll end up with true statements. Given truth, however, applying logic correctly yields more true statements.

 

[jverne]

"i just asked fo your point of view."

You got it.

"use word properly? i may not be a master in english, but does that make you instantly fallacious?"

If you look at a square and say "this is round! this is round!" your argument isn't valid because the terms are incorrectly defined. It's the definition of wrong.
So when you make an illogical point and say "this is logical! this is logical!", are you correct?

"anyway i would like to se these words that made my whole point invalid!"

I already listed them: "logical", "rational" and "credible". By definition, you are being none of the above.

Since you aren't being logical, your argument isn't valid until you begin making logical points.

"what more do you need mecha? (1) i posted lots and lots of links (evidence), and you still call me illogical. (2) i tried to use reason and not emotion and you call me illogical. (3) i showed and argumented the mistakes where someone made a logicall fallacy. (4) i ask you for some proof and you ignore it."

1 - "lots and lots of links" isn't an argument. That's more of an argument from authority than anything.
Unless you are able to synthesize and/or summarize the actual content of those links into a valid point, there is no point in presenting them.

2 - "trying to use reason" is not the same as succeeding at using reason. Specifically, your last post in the thread in question contained an incorrect accusation of "Anecdotal Evidence" to counter a valid question.

Then you dismissed a common-knowledge point (the reported news is predominately negative) for no reason, in what I can only describe as a trivial objection.

Then you presented four unsummarized links, two of which were described, by yourself, as "propaganda".

3 - See above: trying and failing isn't the same as a success.

4 - We asked for a valid argument, of which evidence is a component. Evidence without argument is pointless.

"stop accusing me mecha if you can't (or won't) show my actuall mistakes and logical fallacies!"

That's easy: since I have repeatedly described logical fallacies you've used in both this (and the other) thread, the above claim that "I can't (or won't)" do so constitutes a Straw Man argument.


"i suggest to everyone to go read the "Earthlings" thread and see for yourself who made more credible, evidented, reasonable, quoted posts. i showed people when somebody made a fallacy and they just continued bashing me without even reading..."

If you get any supporters from showing them that thread, I will be deeply surprised.


"my opinion (not fact): you know what i think mecha? i think you don"

I think you don too, jverne.

1. i never made a mistake of that proportions!

2.so if i'm not logical, rational or credible, so how can i rewrite my claims to be logical. apparently making a claim and posting evidence is not a part of being logical?!

3. yes i made 2 summaries which you can read, and presented the rest in the links. but if that isn't enough for you then i will.

4. so it wasn't his opinion? common knowledge? no that is not, show me how many people think this is common knowledge, and post some statistics, then i'll belive it!

5. there are more than four, and two are labeled as propaganda because they are on such sites, but the events that occured are true.

6. yep...i posted the links to show you that there are more than those 3 farms mentioned in the video, which makes your statment that they are coincidences less valid.

7. no you use plain examples to explain your point and then you accuse me of doing it without quoting where i actually made it!

8. supporters? i want people to see that i have argumented my view so they don't have to belive what you are accusing me.

9. the connection broke an it cut my post.., now it's working look back.

 

[secret friend]

Logic is a mental construction humans use to understand the universe.

The universe doesn't need to follow the rules of logic; it's all in our heads.

 

[Sulkdodds]

(in response to mecha) It's like when somebody was telling me pure logic was a horrible way to look at things because it doesn't take emotion into account. The example he gave was that if my friend was crying because his parents had died, logically I would have no reason to comfort him as there is no benefit for me. But I told him he was confusing 'logic' with 'being a robot' and that logically, I would go and help him because he's my friend and because he's sad (which is a bad thing). Logic takes emotions into account. It is not their opposite.

 

[secret friend]

, logically I would have no reason to comfort him as there is no benefit for me.

Isn't the continuing friendship to that person a logical reason for you to comfort him during that difficult time?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Bingo.

As for jverne, I think it's safe at this point to say he's hopeless.

 

[baxter]

Jverne, as amusing as it is to see your posts ripped apart,arguing that it is illogical to use logic in an argument is kind of illogical anyway. I mean surely you see that it is logical to believe it is illogical to not use logic. Or in other words it must be illogical to dismiss logic because it is illogical.

Maybe you could clear up your point. Is it actually illogical to use logic or is it logical to be illogical? Or is it logical to be logical even though you feel it is illogical? Or is it actually illogical to use illogical statements even though you feel they are logical but they may or may not be illogical?

Cheers I look forward to your logical reply or will it be illogical based on my assumption of what is logical?

 

[Sulkdodds]

Isn't the continuing friendship to that person a logical reason for you to comfort him during that difficult time?

Yes. I implied that when I said 'because he's your friend'.

 

[secret friend]

Yes. I implied that when I said 'because he's your friend'.

"logically I would have no reason to comfort him as there is no benefit for me"
Since there is no benefit for me, I would have no reason to comfort him.

There is benefit for you: his friendship.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Did you even read the post?

That was an example stated by someone else which I argued against.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, as amusing as it is to see your posts ripped apart,arguing that it is illogical to use logic in an argument is kind of illogical anyway. I mean surely you see that it is logical to believe it is illogical to not use logic. Or in other words it must be illogical to dismiss logic because it is illogical.

Maybe you could clear up your point. Is it actually illogical to use logic or is it logical to be illogical. Or is it logical to be logical even though you feel it is illogical. Or is it actually illogical to use illogical statements even though you feel they are logical but they may or may not be illogical?

Cheers I look forward to your logical reply or will it be illogical based on my assumption of what is logical?

you see, that's the problem because none of you can't show me where i was being illogical. or wrong. or everything you are accusing me!


i'm still waiting answers mecha!

show my wrong words, show where i was not using sense...why can't nobody do this!?