All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

# Logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I know I am resonable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Philocat
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Philosophy Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 65862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 Pro logic is the measurement of reasonable, I know you can't see my physical body if you close your eyes, like I know you can't read these words on your screen if you close your eyes, cause and effect(logic), so its reasonable for you to continue to have your eyes open, if you want to read on till the end of this message, based on the logic that is you cant see these words with your eyes closedReport this Argument Con I accept your debate, I will be arguing against the statement 'logic is the measurement of reasonable, and I know logic, so I am reasonable'. Reasonable is defined as 'to have sound judgment' (1) where sound is defined as 'free from logical flaws' (2) In your statement, you logic is stating: "X is the measurement of Y, I know X so I am Y." In other words, you are stating that knowing the measure of something is equivalent to having that something. Whilst this could often be the case, it is not necessarily true which is what the statement implies. For example, I know the measurement of height is metres. However, this does not mean that I know I am tall. Using your logic, the following would be true: "Metres is the measurement of height, and I know metres, so I know I am high". This statement is not logically valid. Firstly, because knowledge of the measure of something does not mean I can actually measure it. I am a physics student and know what the Tesla (T) is (the measure of magnetic flux density), this does not mean that I can actually measure magnetic flux density. Secondly, just because I measure something does not mean that I will get a high result. In the statement, one could use logic to measure how reasonable they are, but they could then find themselves to be unreasonable based on their logic. For example, let us say that I know what IQ tests are, what they measure and how to do them. I might know all this, but this does not mean I will get a high IQ score. To conclude, you might know logic but that does not mean you can measure how reasonable you are. Also, you may measure how reasonable you are but you cannot guarantee that you will find yourself to be reasonable. (1) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... (2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Report this Argument Pro how do you know if you are tall? lies are complicated by separation, and true is simple now as one know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not cause+effect=logic(cause and effect is logic) logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die certainty=physical experience doubt(belief)=imagination I cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure how fast is 50 miles per hour?Report this Argument Con 'how do you know if you are tall?' By measuring your height, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you are tall. You could very well be short. 'know=Physical experience of now, I can see that I am taller then others or not' That assumes that you are tall, if you are short and claim to be tall then you don't know that you are tall. Relating back to the statement, you're begging the question by assuming that you are reasonable in order to prove that you are reasonable. 'logic is the measurement of reasonable because if I got the strength of superman over night what is reasonable for me to do would change, it would be reasonable to jump of a building, where as it could be reasonable to jump off a building if I didn't have superman's power and I wanted to die, and it would be unreasonable to jump if I didn't want to die' Agreed, I do not really disagree that logic is the measurement of reasonable, only that 'I know logic, so I am reasonable' is a false conclusion to draw from it. ' cant know information from a machine, imaginary measures, like the speedometer in a car is an imaginary measure how fast is 50 miles per hour?' This is not imaginary. A speedometer informs the observer of how fast it is moving through space. 50 miles per hour is the average speed at which one is travelling through space when one moves 50 miles in exactly one hour.Report this Argument Pro know is not an assumption, I can see if I am taller then you begging what question, I know I cant see these words with my eyes closed so I know its reasonable to keep them open if I want to read these words on the screen if I know I cant see with my eyes closed, I know I have to open them to see, and it is reasonable to do so if I want to see the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?Report this Argument Con You can only see if you are taller than me only if you can see. Just because you know the methodology of comparing heights does not mean that you can actually compare heights. Begging the question is a term in logic where one attempts to use the conclusion as a premise to prove itself. In your case, you are using the conclusion (that you are reasonable) as a premise (that you are reasonable). "the problem is, how do you know the speedometer is right, and how do you tell how fast 50 miles per hour is without a speedometer?" I know things from the axiom of empiricism. Assuming that my senses give an accurate perception of reality then I can tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is by stating that it is the speed at which one can travel for one hour and move 50 miles. A speedometer, conversely, cannot tell you how fast 50 miles per hour is. Only that you ARE going at 50 miles per hour.Report this Argument Pro you just admitted if I can see then I can see I am taller than you. and this is simply a complication, I know its reasonable for you to have your eyes open if you want to read these words on the screen, argue with that reality is defined by experience, so the car goes as fast as I see, hear, know, that is the true speed know=physical experience of now lies are complicated by separation and true is simple now as one you can tell my anything, i am telling you the moon is made of cheese, and your sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption, you have no other connection to reality then your senses, you are dead without themReport this Argument Con I am not arguing against empiricism. So I agree with your arguments but they do not argue against my point. However, whilst remaining an empiricist, I refute your claim that sensory experience has nothing to do with an assumption. You are assuming that your senses are giving an accurate portrayal of reality. This is an assumption because there is no synthetic or analytic evidence to that it is fact. It may well be your only connection to reality, but that does not necessarily mean it is a reliable one. Nonetheless, just because it is an assumption does not mean it is not a reasonable assumption. It is reasonable, but that does not make it not an assumption. Also, your definition of 'know' as 'physical experience of now' is faulty, because that would imply that one cannot know something without physically experiencing it. This is false. I know that all bachelors are unmarried because 'bachelor' means 'unmarried male'. It is true by definition and I do not require physical experience of the romantic relationships (or lack thereof) of bachelors to know that they are unmarried.Report this Argument Pro facts are in the past, past dosnt matter, now is matter, I know my experience of now fact=Knowledge=memory of personal physical experience where as anything I imagine goes to belief, so its not a fact, as facts are past observations, and you don't know if I just looked at my dog, in fact, I don't have a dog, but am I lying about not having a dog? so is it a fact or not that I just looked at my dog? facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory, that's like saying I can see what others have observed in the past in my imagination now and its true? imagination is 100 percent false I know I am typing these words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, as I don't have to imagine if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute, I also know liquid is wet even if I could only imagine it, as know is true and the absolute are no other option I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect I know it is unreasonable to feed my child battery acid because of the implications it has, and matter determines it, so I know logic, therefore I know reason, because knowing logic is continuous, you can not not experience logic, to suggest other wise is madness know is cause and effect, if you are blind you cant see these words on your screen, and its absoluteReport this Argument Con "I know it is unreasonable to feed my child battery acid because of the implications it has, and matter determines it, so I know logic, therefore I know reason, because knowing logic is continuous, you can not not experience logic, to suggest other wise is madness" Agreed, knowing logic is an aspect of reason. However, showing logic is not to say that you are reasonable. This is because 'reasonable' is when someone is consistently and aptly using logic. One can use logic inconsistently and incompetently and not be reasonable, because you have noted correctly that everyone uses logic, but not everyone uses it well enough to be classed as reasonable. Furthermore, I dispute your definition of fact. You say a fact is defined as 'memory of personal physical experience' but this would mean that hallucinations and dreams are factual, which is false. Again, it is also a false definition as not all facts need to come from physical experience. For example, that fact that a triangle has three sides does not need to come from physical experience, I know it analytically using reason alone. "facts doesn't exist beyond my own memory" This is also false, I have no memory of researching and finding out about biochemical enzyme reactions (because I never did so), but that does not mean that biochemical facts to do with enzyme reactions do not exist. "if bachelor cant exist without unmarried males, then you are right, cause and effect is absolute" Analytic statements have nothing to do with cause and effect. Cause and effect is an empirical axiom (albeit a disputed one) that epistemologically assist us in understanding sensory experience. A significant attribute of a priori analytic reasoning is that cause and effect are irrelevant principles. For example, you cite this example: 'I know you cant see these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect' The relevance of cause and effect is present because your knowledge that you cannot see words on a screen without opening your sides is a posteriori reasoning (coming from experience) and so cause and effect are aptly considered. Yet this is not the case in analytic facts.Report this Argument
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
there is no logic in fantasy

logic in reality is determined by matter not by what you think
Posted by Soul.Purge 2 years ago
Pro does not understand what 'logic' means.
First of all, logic is not something you are born with. You learn it when you grow up.
Secondly, logic all on its own does not provide any solutions for real life problems. In one simple sentence, logic is tool we humans use to see if said conclusions follow from said premises.

If you follow all 'rules' of logic and draw, from a premise, logically valid conclusion that you are reasonable, then you are. End of story.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
© 2017 Debate.org. All rights reserved.