Logic

[milod]

I'm far from the only person who has identified fallacies in various arguments.

 

It's my belief that such identification should not be cause to drop a forum thread, but it has been the cause of such in multiple internet fora I've encountered. In my experience, that's usually due to complaints of those whose arguments were pointed out as being examples of classical fallacies in reasoning.

 

Advertising critics as well as political critics have pointed out numerous fallacies in various discussions. My favorite remains, "Nothing cleans better than (name the brand) detergent."

 

Good reasoning is mathematical in the sense that A + B will always bring the same result if the numbers or other data are consistent. 2+3=5 will be "true" regardless how often one does the math. "Any number" + 3 will not always result in a sum of 5.

 

Logic is the heart of mathematics; mathematical precision is required for all discussion lest it become truly, illogical.

 

Since it appears that logic is not necessarily popular in some circles, here's a rather short synopsis of fallacies in logic one encounters every day; in my line of work, far more than one encounter per day.

 

It's a fairly easy read and in a very easy-to-find web site. Increasing complexity of discussion of why certain "arguments" reflect lack of validity, and different perspectives of how one should categorize such error can be easily found elsewhere.

 

Enjoy - or not since it exposes a lot of argument "we" tend to use daily.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

m

[Kaiser Bill]

milo...excellent as always... The wisdom of Spock...logically

[saturn]

Some heavy stuff. I was surprised to not find reductio ad absurdum included.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[milod]

Saturn...

 

One of the problems as I suggested above is that of basic ontology: I.e., how does one categorize material.

 

Most decent listings of logical fallacies tend to reflect the same concepts of what makes an argument fallacious, but will often reflect different sets categorizations of specific errors and even different names reflecting slightly different perspectives and terms that result in an argument's invalidity.

 

That's one reason I wish more folks would read Aristotle on logic and rhetoric, then follow up with increasingly modern material and analysis.

 

On the other hand, those whose arguments are more designed to sway emotion than reason almost certainly won't do such study, or will consider logic irrelevant to their arguments and discredit those who don't follow their lockstep - or who might damage "sales" of their "product" by pointing out fallacious logic.

 

Perfect examples of that latter may be found in the trial arguments against Socrates found in both the "apology" of Plato and that of Xenophon referencing the circumstances leading to the death of Socrates. It was far better emotional appeal than logic on the part of the accusers.

 

I often wonder if such sorts of argument in that general time period weren't themselves reasons why Aristotle and to an extent Plato would get into both logic and modes of rhetoric.

 

One might note that we remain with a habit both of forcing hemlock on those who question emotionalism, and also of drinking it, from a different sorts of emotionalism. I.e., consider the differences in analysis of Socrates in and after the trial by Plato and Xenophon.

 

Or even this hemlock of a thread. <grin>

 

BTW, Xenophon as a military leader of great ability was also rather less idealistic than Plato the "teacher," and it's well reflected in their interpretation of Socrates' final days and response to the emotional farce that condemned him.

 

m

[rocketman]

Great stuff Milo. I would argue that logic is at the heart of early mathematics, but modern mathematics can defy logic. The mathematics of a black hole is an example. Quantum mechanics is another (I'm reading Schiff's famous book right now). But then again these propositions are inherently nonsensical, because they only approximate the real world.

[Greybeard]

The first example that comes to mind when I think of logical vs emotional thinking is our own governing body in congress. After gathering a rather large bunch of people together to debate all of the reasons why we need another law about something we still wind up with many unintended consequences of passing them. Faulty logic?

 

Then when the error of their ways is discovered, the first solution is to hurry and pass another law to fix it. Emotional response?

 

Perhaps there needs to be a litmus test for logical thinking given to our governing body.

[milod]

Rocketman... Yeah, and "fuzzy logic" actually works in terms of computers, at least. Possibility vs. probability, etc.

 

<grin>

 

As a philosophy "fan" if you will, I tend to wonder on occasion whether mathematics as we know it will be able to somehow describe "existence" as we're coming to understand it, or if we're thrown back for a while onto prose as our best, albeit horribly inadequate, alternative at communicating "empirical reality" that has stretched so far beyond what may be considered empirical.

 

In short... perhaps we're not in science all that far from the lesser vision of those in Plato's cave. And I wonder the degree to which "metaphysics" and "physics" at some point again become one?

 

<bigger grin> Anyway, it seems difficult for some, as Plato wrote in the allegory of the cave, to cease a desire to rid themselves of those who fail to see the same shadows as their reality. I have a hunch that at times you, as a scientist, haven't found yourself in such a position of feeling that response from those who refuse to perceive beyond Newton's basic three "laws" of mechanics that we now know may perhaps conceal more than they reveal.

 

But I think there's a real difference between the fuzzy logic of AI in a computer - e.g., is it too warm in the room so that there should be a change in settings for the heat and air conditioning, or what is possibility/probability of a misspelled word in a cell phone text - as opposed to the illogical argument of emotional response to whether one "likes" a certain type of candy or... arguing a political perspective without setting first the premises on which an opinion is theoretically based.

 

-- And that takes us to Greybeard's comment on "politics."

 

Yes, I think much of politics is to clean up - or cover up - unintended consequences of prior law. And it's also to keep those subject to "government" from rebellion that might, in some eastern cultures, have been considered a loss of the "mandate of heaven" and change of dynasty.

 

Personally I tend to think we are increasingly conditioned in our electronic age to emotional rather than logical responses both by intended and unintended factors in society. Heck, I myself plead guilty to watching "action movies" rather than constant study of argument over points of philosophy or reading of history.

 

Regardless, I fear we're en route to a culture not dissimilar to that of Rome during days of of its greatest excesses.

 

One must note that those shadows were little recognized by those kept happy with their situation because they enjoyed bread and circuses. They weren't sufficiently highly placed in the, truly, the "arena," to feel the concurrent dangers inherent in their society's circumstance - unless they made the error of disagreeing with or otherwise agitating the wrong folks.

 

m

[pippy]

Excellent list.

 

The 'Argument from Authority' stance reminded me of this exchange between the Inkeeper, 'Giuseppe', and Napoleon Bonaparte in Shaw's 'The Man of Destiny';

 

'N'; "What shall we do with this officer, Giuseppe? Everything he says is wrong."

'G'; "Make him a General, excellency; then everything he says will be right."

 

P.

[jaxson50]

My head hurts.

[MissouriPicker]

Milo, you're talking way-over my pay grade (don't get a big head over that, because it doesn't take much to confuse me) , but one thing I do understand it that you can't apply logic, commonsense, and wisdom to love, especially when that love is tied to guitars. You'd have a better chance of talking logic and commonsense to politicians---all except the 3+2=5 part. Politicians can make those numbers add-up to anything they want.

[milod]

Missouri...

 

Your comment has validity, at least when it comes to guitars and personal relationships. On the other hand, even there we often find ourselves having made very costly errors. We're lucky in that seldom do those personal errors affect more than ourselves and up to a few dozen others somehow touched by that error.

 

Decisions involving business and political governance certainly will have a degree of emotion, but without a logical structure for what, how and how much, we're literally gambling that our investment will even come close to its desired result.

 

In fact, part of the push-back against the "Romantic" poets such as Shelley, was that such lines as "I fall on the thorns of life, I bleed," written from inside the rush of emotion are bad art as well as poorly reflective of the circumstances the poet was writing about.

 

I'll wager that few of us longtime pickers have not purchased a guitar or amp and then, when reflection and logic kick in, wish we had not because it didn't fit us, our musical needs or worse, our budget. Ditto, unfortunately, decisions made on emotional responses to others whether having to do with a band or with some other more personal relationship.

 

I just think that governance should be based on better premises than emotion. Unless one believes in the butterfly effect that may hit in another million years or so, governance is far more important that a single individual's emotional guitar purchase.

 

m

[Greybeard]

Regardless, I fear we're en route to a culture not dissimilar to that of Rome during days of of its greatest excesses.

 

One must note that those shadows were little recognized by those kept happy with their situation because they enjoyed bread and circuses. They weren't sufficiently highly placed in the, truly, the "arena," to feel the concurrent dangers inherent in their society's circumstance - unless they made the error of disagreeing with or otherwise agitating the wrong folks.

 

 

I have to agree with you on that one Milo. Just read that 80% of the high school grads in New York that enter community colleges can't read. I'm shocked at this percentage but its something that I saw coming in some of the college grads that got themselve hired into our company. I had a new engineering grad assigned to my group shortly before I retired that could hardly put two or three coherent sentences together to convey a message about what he was working on. Logical thinking wasn't even close to his capabilities. He didn't make it through the probation period before he was given an option to resign.

 

If we have an educational system that routinely produces this type of product, how can we expect enough logical thinkers to carry on society as we know it? I haven't looked into the percentages of students that enter into math and science based fields these days but it was on the decline while I was still among the employed a few years ago.

[Tman]

A fascinating read M.

 

Are some conclusions based on faith in the process or theory arguments then existential fallacy?

[milod]

The problem one encounters with the concept of existential fallacy is, to an extent at least, one of failure to give credence to a more Platonic sort of consideration of reality and existence. I tend to consider it more of a monkey wrench concern for classical logic than an expansion of mathematics' ability to figure either possibilities as in "fuzzy logic" or probabilities such as in gambling odds.

 

An existential fallacy assumes that one or more premises in a simple syllogism are, in one way or another, invalid. In governance that can be a monkey wrench in that various factions might consider a premise invalid while another faction might consider it valid - and therefore find themselves at impasse.

 

"Faith" is an emotion that suggests certain things that may not be empirically provable. One encounters that in much discussion of ethics and we're back to definitions of such as "virtue." Plato referred to this in his allegory of the cave referenced in "The Republic," in which he noted that the most difficult to discover and define is a universal we might describe as "good."

 

That's different from "adequate," or "practical" or "beautiful," or even "satisfying to one's emotions." But certain unsubstantiated terms do, indeed, become part of one's personal "faith."

 

To me at least, governance has to consider as many potential variables for possible (not probable) consequences, and make determinations based on that study along with a degree of political values.

 

A study of the early U.S. Federalist Papers are an example of such consideration. One might argue conclusions because one questions validity of the base propositions, but I think the logic followed is pretty coherent in consideration of potential pitfalls as well as long-term benefit.

 

Whether one agrees or disagrees with all or parts of Federalist and Anti-Federalist stances that remain factors in U.S. politics today, for example, a study of the rational exposition of concerns on both sides leads to a better understanding of the complexities of all nations' governance.

 

Instead, it seems one needs only watch any television "news" network or to read an average daily newspaper to see that "feelings" rather than reasoned positions increasingly take precedent. The consequences of that trend I'll leave to you young folks who have to live with them.

 

m

[Tman]

 

Instead, it seems one needs only watch any television "news" network or to read an average daily newspaper to see that "feelings" rather than reasoned positions increasingly take precedent. The consequences of that trend I'll leave to you young folks who have to live with them.

 

m

 

Exactly what I meant! Kind of pseudo quantification of assumptions based on feelings and/or emotions.

 

Damn Milod, you are quite articulate on paper. When I was in college I used to love thinking about such conundrums as fallacious arguments but now spend that energy on treating my guitar acquisition syndrome - a fallacious endeavor.

[Hall]

I read the attachment fifty eleven times!

 

Steve

[dem00n]

Logic is only discontent of a maker and lollygagging.

 

Pish posh for a meaning that does not exist.

 

I prefer 'codes'.

[milod]

Dem...

 

Without logic, codes themselves are without meaning.

 

I'm nowhere in the same league with my youngest sibling who thinks in machine language... and is a guitar player too. But the logic of code, syntax, "grammar," and word meanings is pretty logical, at least within its own system.

 

The problem with code often fed into computers, however, IMHO tends to be is a lack of nuance which aids "logic" but may also ill define problems.

 

Tman...

 

Unfortunately Guitar Acquisition Syndrome may not be in some ways "logical," in others it's completely understandable as long as such acquisitions don't overwhelm acquisitions of more basic individual needs.

 

<grin>

 

In short, I've got it too even though it may not make very good sense to some folks.

 

m

[Tman]

 

Tman...

 

Unfortunately Guitar Acquisition Syndrome may not be in some ways "logical," in others it's completely understandable as long as such acquisitions don't overwhelm acquisitions of more basic individual needs.

 

m

 

Like food. M take two Les Paul's and call me in the morning..........

[jaxson50]

This is deep...I'm still trying to figure out a way to propel astronauts with beans once they are in space..self propelled astronauts are the way of the future...

[milod]

Jax...

 

Hey, our Rocketman could, I'm certain, figure out not only the way to convert methane into a functional and controllable propellant, he could figure the trajectories, acceleration and deceleration necessary for 0-G transport. That's not a joke.

 

However, I'd suggest the difficulty might be more a matter of maintaining an appropriate supply of that methane. <grin> And that is one to laugh about a bit.

 

m

[zigzag]

I don't think I saw two fallacious paths of logic in the wiki article:

 

1) The female phallicy- any argument by a woman, since none contain any semblance of validity or logic, but are always entirely correct (if you know what's good for you).

2) The statistical fantasy- any argument based on statistics, since 76% of all statistics are made up.

[milod]

Ziggy...

 

Can't argue much against your first comment.

 

As for the second... A lotta people make up stats but generally in my experience they're far, far more likely to be used in ways that bring up the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - "after this, therefore because of this," which is the "a black cat crossed my path and then I was hit by a car, therefore the black cat crossing my path brought on the bad luck of a strike by the car."

 

m

[stein]

The Wiki link is way over my head...but then again, I think that's actually by design. The authors of the link and the info contained, obviously, has it's origin in the study of philosophy.

 

Personally, I think one of the fallicies of modern philoshophy is that it is no longer used for truth, but rather more of an exorcise in changing it, or masking it, or how to argue.

 

MY impression of the origins of 'philosophy', is that it is tied to the sciences, the quest for knowledge, and having the purpose of seeking reality and truth. That, the reasons philosophy as concept was to learn the art of study to assist in these goals.

 

However, most of what I experience of fans of philosophy in this age is more of an exorcise on how to change points of view, to use arguments or discussions for it's own purpose. It's own purpose, being usually to present whatever point of view the "philosopher" wishes to support.

 

With enough knowledge and study, one can craft the perfect argument. Problem I see is, that when the emphasis is in the skill of the argument and the point of view(s), it becomes self-serving, and as such, without a goal of truth, the goal becomes whatever the philosopher wishes it to be. And in my experience, that goal I see most using philosophy for is BS.

 

Indeed, there are so many fallacies listing in the link that surely by using them, any argument can be shown to be invalid. In fact, I might suggest that it's so comprehensive that it might make "logically" any sentence spoken incorrect by at least one stantard.

 

To me, when TOO much logic is presented, or is used in such a fashion as to require to much effort to understand, it becomes illogical. I don't mean to suggest that the definition of logic has to mean simple vs complex. And, as well, I don't mean to suggest that it's a question of intelligence. But rather, crafting a written or spoken concept that requires more effort of thought to understand what is said can take away from the subject one wishes the reader to think about.

[Greybeard]

The Wiki link is way over my head...but then again, I think that's actually by design. The authors of the link and the info contained, obviously, has it's origin in the study of philosophy.

 

Personally, I think one of the fallicies of modern philoshophy is that it is no longer used for truth, but rather more of an exorcise in changing it, or masking it, or how to argue.

 

MY impression of the origins of 'philosophy', is that it is tied to the sciences, the quest for knowledge, and having the purpose of seeking reality and truth. That, the reasons philosophy as concept was to learn the art of study to assist in these goals.

 

However, most of what I experience of fans of philosophy in this age is more of an exorcise on how to change points of view, to use arguments or discussions for it's own purpose. It's own purpose, being usually to present whatever point of view the "philosopher" wishes to support.

 

With enough knowledge and study, one can craft the perfect argument. Problem I see is, that when the emphasis is in the skill of the argument and the point of view(s), it becomes self-serving, and as such, without a goal of truth, the goal becomes whatever the philosopher wishes it to be. And in my experience, that goal I see most using philosophy for is BS.

 

Indeed, there are so many fallacies listing in the link that surely by using them, any argument can be shown to be invalid. In fact, I might suggest that it's so comprehensive that it might make "logically" any sentence spoken incorrect by at least one stantard.

 

To me, when TOO much logic is presented, or is used in such a fashion as to require to much effort to understand, it becomes illogical. I don't mean to suggest that the definition of logic has to mean simple vs complex. And, as well, I don't mean to suggest that it's a question of intelligence. But rather, crafting a written or spoken concept that requires more effort of thought to understand what is said can take away from the subject one wishes the reader to think about.

 

 

Quite well said Stein. I can remember my first college course in philosophy. It was Existentialism and based on the writings of a guy named Kierkegaard. The professor was quite good at being able to use the philosophy to argue either side of various types of arguements to prove a point and half the time I was confused as to which side he was on. I remember various conversations with others in the class as to who among us was more lost in how to deal with what the professor was saying. He told us that he was only going to give a mid-term and a final exam to base our grade on and each of us would have to take the test orally, one-on-one with him by making an appointment. I had my orals with him and each time we had quite lively conversations about how I felt about all of it. In the end he gave me a A for a grade and I had no idea why. I didn't think we had ever found an understanding between us but somewhere in there there must have been something that he got out of it.

 

I like to consider myself a logical person having been an aerospace engineer for my career. But I have seen a lot of different uses of logic to prove points that seem to be pre-determined by someone before the logic was applied. Usually that becomes quite obvious when questions arise and the presenter can't go any deeper than his talking points. I do think that logical, proveable, rules have to be applied in science to arrive at new breakthroughs in development of complex systems that might result in unintended consequences for the product or the users.