Logic

[milod]

Stein...

 

Well... I was raised with a heavy dose of classical philosophy. At one point my Dad even taught a class or two of intro to philosophy at the uni level. He also was an exceptional motorcycle and auto mechanic in the '50s - a small town car dealer who was his own head mechanic.

 

So... supper table discussions included exercises of taking universals into the very, very practical.

 

Yes, even into what's now known as Aristotle's "metaphysics," the classical perspective on logic is really where we got into the foundation of sciences of all sorts, at least in concept.

 

The problem with current "logic" is that it has been heavily influenced by those who mess, as you mention, in semantics. That's where the above reference to "existential fallacy" arose as "we" began arguing over, guess what, "politics" in the 19th century.

 

As also mentioned above, computers and physics have brought us a batch of circumstances that don't appear to match classical math and logic in that, for example, it's not terribly easy to mathematically describe string theory that has a string existing at two places at once at some time or another. "Fuzzy logic" is part of the artificial intelligence challenge.

 

The problem in ways is that currently we see a combination of messing with logic and rhetoric. A "perfect" logical argument can be entirely dismissed if it is based on an invalid premise.

 

The difficulty in politics is that of premises and, only too often nowadays, ignoring the concept of premise and logic to develop a conclusion and, instead, going directly to an unsupported premise.

 

A perfect example from a thread now orbiting Neptune or Uranus somewhere was to the effect that "We can't have hungry kids in school therefore government must give them breakfast."

 

I'm somewhat ashamed that my criticism of the comment on grounds both of logic and rhetoric didn't bother to mention that in my job position I've been a very, very strong supporter of breakfasts being served in our local schools where roughly half the children are of economic status to receive government subsidized free or reduced price meals. And of city-run after school and summer programs for elementary school kids.

 

The problem is that I greatly fear argument that fails the test of basic logic and simply bullies its way to "win" on grounds that the arguer has the power to make it so.

 

Those supporting "X" should be as nearly violent in supporting my position on logic as those against it. It's not the subject of the argument, it's the validity of premises and reasoning behind commitment.

 

Why? Because the scales of power can and will reverse and a good argument rather than bullying is more likely to have a lasting consensus solution rather than a political football.

 

I think that's as "nonpartisan" as I can get. I've seen local sidewalk issues in both "logical" and "bullying" circumstances, for example. Bullying lasts a while; logical argument lasts much longer.

 

Stein, also you're correct in that the past century "the left" has taken a leading role in working to redefine language and grammar in ways that seem to seek to change the whole role of argument in politics. Noam Chomsky's fame is, for example, as much as a socialist as for work in linguistics rather obviously colored by politics.

 

That latter is not, by the way, a political statement, but a factual one that Chomsky would be very unlikely to deny.

 

m

[stein]

The problem is that I greatly fear argument that fails the test of basic logic and simply bullies its way to "win" on grounds that the arguer has the power to make it so.

 

Can I start here? Don't know why I pick out this sentence...maybe the word "fear"...but gotta start somewhere.

 

"Bullying" doesn't make anything right or wrong, or true or not. One can even use "logic" as a tool to bully or force a conclusion, but I think the issue isn't really who wins or loses, it's wether it's true or false.

 

The question should be, for all, a question of how close we can be to the truth, and what IS the truth. That should take precedence over considerations of how we get there, or who wins.

 

"We", SAY, and believe, that we want the truth. The problem is, we have to many other things we consider important, and allow too many distractions, that whatever the REALITY of a subject is, it really doesn't matter. I think we all spend more energy and thought into FEELING we are right, than QUESTIONING if we are right. And, in that, we have accepted the concept that it is personal, in that where we stand on an issue defines us. And THAT has replaced most or all interest in the results of our opinions or views.

 

I think, THE most important aspect of the whole search for truth is the question of where our hearts are, and what is in our hearts. If one does not have a heart to want to see the truth, nothing short of changing the heart will cause that one to accept the truth. And, if one wants to FEEL like the have views or opinions based on a self-image of having a heart, niether will that actually make it a reality that person actually has one.

 

So, my point is that without an examination of where our hearts are, we aren't going to have any meaningful conclusions that are of any benifit to ourselves and each other. And I strongly suggest, and believe, that the reason things are what they are today compared to the past, is because we as a whole have hearts that do not truly care for one another. As we care less for others, we also do worse to each other.

 

If we actually don't genuinely care about others, and thus care about outcomes, consequences, but yet are driven by greed and self-serving, than what hope is there in expecting reality and truth to be recognized? Logic and intelligence will always loose to desire and greed.

 

Which, I guess is what you were getting at in the first place, that emotion and "feelings" have replaced common sense and logic.

[zigzag]

I nominate stein's last post for post of the year. Nice work stein!

[Guest EastEnder]

The emotion versus truth points raised above are valid. Emotion in the form of belief (or wanting to believe) will often turn logic on its head. This can be demonstrated quite well in the popular, prima facie "logical" argument that something cannot come from nothing, while science has shown this not necessarily to be true.

 

In any event, I've enjoyed this thread immensely — although I find it somewhat shocking that the conversation is taking place in such an anti-intellectual society.

 

My only other comment would be that philosophy is the dead horse that keeps getting flogged. Bury it. It's the logical thing to do.

 

EE

[stein]

I nominate stein's last post for post of the year. Nice work stein!

Dng...that's really a nice thing to say. I consider that a high cmpliment coming from you.

 

Thanks.

[RaysEpiphone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_--Q1S9Gk

[Izzy]

@ stein

 

I really like your point regarding self-serving argumentation and debating for the sake of winning regardless of what may be true or what is in your heart. I've always been a fan of playing devil's advocate and have realized that arguing dispassionately can be more effective than talking from the heart because your mind clears knowing you're constructing a really good case.

 

@ milod

 

Shouldn't all of the fallacies be...common sence?

 

The list of fallacies remind me of scales. Scales are useful, but I don't know my scales and I can still hear when a note is off if I am working within what I realize is probably a scale, though I couldn't tell you what letter the scale is called.

 

milod, do you think if we had the fallacy list memorized we would be better at argument construction just the way guitarists who know their scales do not fumble for a note when constructing a riff?

[milod]

Izzy...

 

As I noted, there are a number of "lists" of fallacies.

 

The more modern ones bring up such stuff as "existential fallacy" that almost allows one to suggest there is no valid premise whatsoever.

 

For example, let's say "all people have two legs." The existential fallacy fan would then suggest, "not after amputation or due to birth defect, so your whole argument is wrong."

 

That's obviously why IMHO we're best off considering the more classical version even as Newton's three laws of motion work quite adequately for most thoughts of practical mechanics. For example, a traffic accident reconstructionist functionally uses Newton and basic math to figure out various aspects of a crash. Quantum theory, string theory, etc., even relativity, is not really appropriate.

 

It's much the same with everyday "logic," except that too often we find examples of fallacious thinking even without the more politically-charged "yahbuts."

 

For example, the "black cat" fallacy (technically "post hoc, ergo propter hoc),is pretty easy to let pass, especially if "we" are already predisposed to believe it. The black cat crossed our path, then a car hit us, therefore the black cat brought the bad luck that led to our being hit by the car.

 

Yes, we can see that is a fallacy, but how about, "He watched the rock video and then killed somebody?" Did the video actually play a role in leading to murder?

 

I dunno. Prove it.

 

Or some other types of fallacies all grouped into one: "5,000 physicians say that cars should be illegal because there are thousands car accident victims every week worldwide. If it saves just life, we must stop driving cars." What does the opinion of the 5,000 physicians have to do with anything other than perhaps their experience in treating wounds?

 

What if instead they're all oncologists or podiatrists, does that make their assertion more or less valid?

 

Do we agree with the premise that "if it saves just one life," cars should be outlawed?

 

Etc., etc.

 

Yet we hear that sort of argument every day. It's not, unfortunately, "common sense." In fact, "it" is most likely what has gotten more than a few "political" threads killed here.

 

Perhaps cars should be made illegal to save lives. But is there something other than outlawing cars, such as better highways, that might make a significant decrease in accidents?

 

If we say, let's have better highways for safer driving, is it a valid argument then for the 5,000 physicians then to proclaim, "You don't care about life because you're not making cars illegal so we can end traffic accidents forever?"

 

I guess what really bugs me is how many people will fall into the trap of such obviously bad argument, but it it's something they "believe," logic is irrelevant.

 

That's true regardless of which side of a "political discussion" one might agree.

 

I'm appalled more often that you might wish to know when I hear arguments on both sides of important issues, from sidewalks to - well, you name it - that would have literally been laughed at 50 years ago.

 

Bottom line: Whether it's need for sidewalks, two physicians discussing tactics to help a very ill patient, American agriculture policy or how to protect Russia from another hit by a meteorite... shouldn't solid premises and logic rule the discussion rather than emotion that we must build sidewalks, we must use DrugA and surgery, wheat should be illegal because gluten harms some folks, and that we need to build 10,000 big nukes and rockets to shoot down asteroids?

 

m

[badbluesplayer]

I've never really been much of a philosopher. I read your standard introductory Plato/Socrates stuff and then knew kids who studied philosophy in college. I took engineering and so I had a kind of different view of "logic."

 

In my line of work, everything is about the truth. Engineers are slaves to the truth. You don't do something right, you lose your license. Everything else is kind of secondary. To an engineer, a "Red Herring" is just something that's "wrong." I have so much herring smell all over me after 30 years that red herrings don't distract me and they aren't worth dissecting any more. They're just "wrong".

 

I've been a licensed professional engineer for thirty years. I've designed over a hundred buildings. Dams, towers, foundations. I've never been sued yet - that I know of. That's logic.

 

It's all simply about the truth.

 

As far as logic goes in a complicated world, I have one overriding principle. You have options, you make choices, and the choices have consequences. Those are the things you can control. No matter how complicated things are, that principle always works. And you keep your license.

[Izzy]

I've never really been much of a philosopher. I read your standard introductory Plato/Socrates stuff and then knew kids who studied philosophy in college. I took engineering and so I had a kind of different view of "logic."

 

In my line of work, everything is about the truth. Engineers are slaves to the truth. You don't do something right, you lose your license. Everything else is kind of secondary. To an engineer, a "Red Herring" is just something that's "wrong." I have so much herring smell all over me after 30 years that red herrings don't distract me and they aren't worth dissecting any more. They're just "wrong".

 

I've been a licensed professional engineer for thirty years. I've designed over a hundred buildings. Dams, towers, foundations. I've never been sued yet - that I know of. That's logic.

 

It's all simply about the truth.

 

As far as logic goes in a complicated world, I have one overriding principle. You have options, you make choices, and the choices have consequences. Those are the things you can control. No matter how complicated things are, that principle always works. And you keep your license.

 

Engineers and nurses need to have beers together. We mess up, we lose our licenses too. It something is fuzzy I always consult the older moe expirienced, and if their opinion leaves me feeling as uneasy, I call the Doc. When the Doc's opinion/order makes me uneasy...I make lots of notes and use my judgment or in what I consider an emergency, call higher care staff and administrators.

 

The gut is a funny thing...sometimes logic and truth say one thing but MY GUT tells me something is not right about it and sure enough something is wrong. The gut knows has ESP?

[saturn]

Now I know that I can't speak on the level of some of the engineers, scientists and professional journalists we have here in the Gibson Lounge. I'm more your layman philosopher type. I've read some stuff on my own over the years by people like Socrates, Plato, even Machiavelli, but I certainly have no advanced degrees or anything like that.

 

Having said that, coming from my limited perspective, another thing that I think goes along with the "logic" aspect of arguments that Milod is trying to expose, is objectivity. Now myself, I'm probably objective to a fault. I can't help it. I view almost everything from at least 2 perspectives, even if one of those perspectives is counter to my own interest or the interest of someone I care for. It's almost like I remove myself and view it as a third person. This trait makes it very difficult for me to ever "win" an argument. It also sometimes angers my wife who feels that I see everyone else side of things except hers. Using her as an example, she argues 100% from emotion and feelings. That's why I never win (and I suspect most husbands don't) an argument with her and I am always wrong. Her logic is...if she feels angry, hurt or offended by something, then it must be that other "something's" fault. Both her and her brother argue that way. They seem to believe that whoever delivers their side with more force, wins. Regardless of the content they are presenting. Now I'm not trying to bad mouth my wife. Just pointing out that it is almost impossible to argue with that kind of "logic" and it applies many other places in life.

 

Another example, coming from kind of the opposite end, is a guy I like named Richard Dawkins. He's a biologist and evolutionist who brutally uses scientific evidence and logic to ridicule anyone who disagrees with him. I generally agree with the content of his views, but feel that in the end some of his tactics are counterproductive. He ends up preaching to his own choir so to speak. I think you have to at least acknowledge others people's feeling, beliefs, faith, customs, traditions etc. and proceed accordingly. Here is a short, and in the end humorous clip of Niel Degrasse Tyson making a similar point:

 

[Guest EastEnder]

Another example, coming from kind of the opposite end, is a guy I like named Richard Dawkins. He's a biologist and evolutionist who brutally uses scientific evidence and logic to ridicule anyone who disagrees with him.

 

I think you have the "anyone who disagrees with him" part wrong. He uses scientific evidence and logic to underscore the fallacies of arguments put forth by the Intelligent Design and Creationism crowd. He's passionate about it because he sees the incredible damage being done to society by blind ignorance, particularly to children. These deniers of scientific truth invite ridicule, so Dawkins walks right in.

 

Respectfully,

 

EE

[jaxson50]

1363127612[/url]' post='1344084']

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_--Q1S9Gk

 

I love this!

[RowdyMoon]

 

If we actually don't genuinely care about others, and thus care about outcomes, consequences, but yet are driven by greed and self-serving, than what hope is there in expecting reality and truth to be recognized? Logic and intelligence will always loose to desire and greed.

 

 

 

and unfortunately the age of the "net" is just breeding more of that self serving,gratifying, degradation in our society....the web is one of the best and worst inventions.

 

and truth, some things are true and will always be true......but somethings are temporarily true untill science or law or some other form of " authority" deems it untrue.

 

 

Just my opinion of course.

[saturn]

I think you have the "anyone who disagrees with him" part wrong. He uses scientific evidence and logic to underscore the fallacies of arguments put forth by the Intelligent Design and Creationism crowd. He's passionate about it because he sees the incredible damage being done to society by blind ignorance, particularly to children. These deniers of scientific truth invite ridicule, so Dawkins walks right in.

 

Respectfully,

 

EE

 

I was just trying to be "sensitive" to those who believe the earth is 6000 years old.

[stein]

Engineers and nurses need to have beers together. We mess up, we lose our licenses too. It something is fuzzy I always consult the older moe expirienced, and if their opinion leaves me feeling as uneasy, I call the Doc. When the Doc's opinion/order makes me uneasy...I make lots of notes and use my judgment or in what I consider an emergency, call higher care staff and administrators.

 

The gut is a funny thing...sometimes logic and truth say one thing but MY GUT tells me something is not right about it and sure enough something is wrong. The gut knows has ESP?

Now, THERE's two specialist I don't want to see drunk!

 

Kidding. I'll buy. Actually, I don't have any money just now, so you guys can buy me a drink then.

 

Seriously though, personally, I have been having trouble lately with my "thinking", and sometimes feeling paranoid, often overwelmed, forgetful, etc. I don't have an answer, but it has caused me to examine a few things.

 

I find, that often my "gut" isn't nessesarily correct, BUT, a lot of it is the result of unprocessed information. In a lot of cases, I think I observe a behavior or action, and it remains buried in my head somewhere. That gut feeling is really my subconcious self telling me things aren't adding up, or urging me to process the info somehow.

 

I don't think "gut" feeling equate to being crazy, nor do I think not processing all memories mean less intelligent. Sometimes, things actually DON'T add up, and when they don't, it might mean rather than you overlooked something, instead you haven't been presented accurate info.

[stein]

I've never really been much of a philosopher. I read your standard introductory Plato/Socrates stuff and then knew kids who studied philosophy in college. I took engineering and so I had a kind of different view of "logic."

 

In my line of work, everything is about the truth. Engineers are slaves to the truth. You don't do something right, you lose your license. Everything else is kind of secondary. To an engineer, a "Red Herring" is just something that's "wrong." I have so much herring smell all over me after 30 years that red herrings don't distract me and they aren't worth dissecting any more. They're just "wrong".

 

I've been a licensed professional engineer for thirty years. I've designed over a hundred buildings. Dams, towers, foundations. I've never been sued yet - that I know of. That's logic.

 

It's all simply about the truth.

 

As far as logic goes in a complicated world, I have one overriding principle. You have options, you make choices, and the choices have consequences. Those are the things you can control. No matter how complicated things are, that principle always works. And you keep your license.

A fine example of "reality", truth.

 

Will it fall down? Are you sure? Definitely a situation where alternate points of view or different difinitions of "reality" don't hold water. (I'm on a roll).

 

But here, it's still important to have integrity. (I can't stand myself..lol).

 

Example: As a builder, I often "reverse engineer" or reley on building codes. (For those who wonder, 'reverse' engineer is something like, replacing a section of wall with a beam, rather than re-engineer the wall and calculate the loads already done when it was built, you simply subtract what you removed and replace it with something calculated to the same specs). My responsibility (one hopes I AM responsible). If it is inspected, I could possibly hold the city/inspecter reponsible if it fails, because he passed it. But, the inspecter doesn't want the burdon of knowing the codes, or passing based on codes, so he requires an engineer stamp. We all know it's going to work by common sense, but basically, it needs an engineer's stamp on the prints. Engineer knows this, and often will calculate WHATEVER as cheaply as possible because he knows darned well it doesn't need any actual engineering, just his stamp.

 

BUT..often, what he is really doing is making his calculations in such a fashion as to pass the buck to the materiels manufacterer...if it was to fail, it wouldn't be his numbers as the cause.

 

Is that wrong? well, hold on a second: If the enginneer's role is just to be a title company, that is, put his stamp on it just to take responsibility himself (and often, that's EXACTLY what an engineer is asked to do...not design something, just take responsibility for it), what is really the cost for asking someone to put thier balls on the line?

 

I think really, as a whole, concepts like truth and reality make more sense. But often, poeple don't want to deal with it, such as a builder who plans on building something half-assed or an inspecter who wants to feel more important in his job making more requirements.

[milod]

Yeah, I think the "gut feeling" is a combination of experience and subconscious information processing.

 

Problem is that sometimes, as the not-too-successful JC Penney chief found, "gut feelings" also can often be wrong.

 

I think in Izzy's case, she's very, very much correct in documenting stuff her gut tells her is somehow "not right." It may mean more crud, but at least she's far less likely to have to appear in court totally disarmed.

 

My nephew is a civil engineer and I'll never forget how late one week he looked at a bridge project where his company had farmed out some of the engineering. Something told him it wasn't nearly strong enough so... Apparently so did his initial math. He spent the weekend redoing the structure to hold the concrete. When it poured the following week, it held. Would it have held anyway? I don't know, but I do know it was not an inexpensive project and his work did hold.

 

m

[badbluesplayer]

I'm such a dope when it comes to classical philosophy!! It's really sinking in.

 

Milod's dad was drilling him on Aristotle and my dad was drilling me on how to be a smart aleck!!

 

Once in awhile, though, my dad would ask me and my sisters, when we were like 6 or something "What's the integral of x dx?" And we'd go "x squared over two." We didn't know what we were saying. It was before we even knew what division was. So I got that going for me...

[milod]

All I'm gonna add right now is the same thing I wrote in Izzy's thread about repairing an old "cheapie" electric guitar: Any time we learn something new it's likely that whether we directly "use" that knowledge or not, it's likely to have some value as even an unconsciously transferable skill.

 

Classical concepts of logic are transferable to math and all sorts of decisions in everyday life even if we don't, per se, craft a syllogism when we're buying an antihistamine or whatever.

 

Unfortunately it's my observation that since the late 19th century we've seen increasing doses of emotional politics as opposed to reasoned argument.

 

My perfect example is from the older era of the "prohibitionists" whose truly nonpartisan arguments were very obviously on the emotional side. In fact, they even won - for a while.

 

m

[zigzag]

This thread appears to have some relevance to this one. Enjoy.

 

Women can't play jazz guitar