logic has no flaws
Con states .......'if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear.. cause and effect'
I believe that the 'building block' approach of human logic is basically an irrelevancy. The world refuses to comply with its restraints and its limitations. If you have a bear skin the bear no longer exists as an entity. Logically my toe would be me if that were true. We talk £$%&* when we attempt to hear ourselves speak. It is a monologue. A hunch has as much validity if it is based on clear sensory input. I believe in cause and effect but what that has to do with logic is there for you to illustrate. Give us an example of useful logic.
I eat chicken and I know what a chicken is. What is your point? What is the cause and what is the effect? What about all the worms the chicken ate? Logic has one obvious flaw, and that is that it is as useful as a pointy stick in a desert. What do you do with it?
you pick up a chicken and eat it, you have tasted it before so you know what you be eating
ie bear skin = dead bear
What if we are able to grow bear skin artificially in the future. What then? Is there a best before on your 'bear' logic?
Lab-Grown Synthetic Skins Could Replace Animals in Cosmetics Testing
by Kestrel Jenkins
Is a skinless bear an actual bear, Is my severed toe-nail me? Who am I? What are you saying about the bear? What are you saying about logic. Is the following logical
'logic has no flaws'
Are all bachelors unhappy? Logic is fallacious beyond comprehension. Do you agree, vi-spex?
a bear is a bear
some bachelors are unhappy.. why change the subject
vi-spex states ' a bear is a bear'
Here you loose the debate, Pro.
You are a believer in human logic as a person would be a believer in religion. I am not.
In this instant, you use language to state nothing, or to reveal nothing. You reveal the obvious and your logic is as illuminating as a pointed finger. You identify something that need not require words. Look at the article on Wik on 'analytic Logic'.
Philosopher Leonard Peikoff, in his essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," expands upon Rand's analysis. He posits that:
You could make your bear observation with a pointed finger, with a children's fairy tale or with a box of crayons. There is as the quote suggests, subjective nuance and appeal lodged within its walls. How many flaws does logic need to have, vi-spex, for you to concede your point?