Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

logic and rationality

rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Does anybody else have this impression?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 6:38:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I read this article yesterday that was talking about cultural differences in cognitive processing. I still have to read all the background research - the impression I got was that it was mostly a comparison of US and Japanese styles of thinking.

Anyway - the conclusions these researchers came to was that this analytical style of thinking is characteristic of independent cultures - ie. Western cultures. This style of separating parts or qualities of something from its setting and context, and analyzing it in isolation and reaching conclusions before trying to integrate the ideas back into whichever context.

Whereas in interdependent cultures (such as Japan), it's more characteristic for people to use a more holistic style of information processing, which does not separate part of a concept from its setting, but rather keeps the idea complicated, so to speak, and may integrate conflicting ideas.

I'm probably not getting it exactly right. I was surprised to read this, and I need to do more reading to understand it properly.

But anyway. The point is, this idea of "logic" that we have may be culturally specific. Not that other cultures don't use logic, but that they may use it and think of it in different ways.

I was just wondering if anyone had any thoughts about this.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:15:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Does anybody else have this impression?

In real life, all the time.
I am not learned in the ways of logic, but IRL, I have often found myself countering someone's complaint of "irrationality" with the concept of "superstitious logic". The idea being that, if you believe the superstition is true, the logic follows, so someone is still acting logical, you just disagree with the premise.
My work here is, finally, done.
NiqashMotawadi3
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 11:20:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Western Scholars such as Quine seem to dismiss epistemological reductionism. Quine, in his paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," argues that you cannot simply abstract a logical statement to understand it, as it is meaningless without a holistic context, and so he introduces "Quine's holism" which takes every logical statement in its empirical context, from what I understand.

On another tangent, if you study the emergence of quantum logic in the Western world as opposed to classical logic, you see that some principles such as the principle of of distributivity(http://en.wikipedia.org...), originally found in classical logic, disregarded based on empiricism, though I won't argue that empiricism defines logic, but I do suppose that some of our understanding of logic, to some extent, can be reshaped by empiricism, and that you have to go back to a gestalt of empiricism to understand logic as there seems to be no proper differentiation between analytic and synthetic statements, and so no basis for an epistemological reductionism as long as most statements appear synthetic in nature, and prone to be re-defined on cultural, or at least, an empirical basis.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 9:52:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 12:15:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Does anybody else have this impression?

In real life, all the time.
I am not learned in the ways of logic, but IRL, I have often found myself countering someone's complaint of "irrationality" with the concept of "superstitious logic". The idea being that, if you believe the superstition is true, the logic follows, so someone is still acting logical, you just disagree with the premise.

Yes, that's my experience too. Except that IRL, I'm not around people who use the terms "irrationality" and "logic" in that way. I've only come across it on this site, actually.

I'd take it further and say that on this site, people seem to sometimes use the terms "logic" and "rationality" in a kind of superstitious way, that they are the gateways to "truth" and that any deviation from the path of "logic" is morally wrong even.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 9:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

Beliefs ought to have everything to do with logic.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Irrational thinking is bad and undesirably and there is nothing subjective or vague about it. Contradictions in logic lead to contradictions in belief which lead to contradictions in behavior, which finally lead to to destruction of value and becoming untrustworthy to rational people.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 10:14:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 11:20:10 AM, NiqashMotawadi3 wrote:
Western Scholars such as Quine seem to dismiss epistemological reductionism. Quine, in his paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," argues that you cannot simply abstract a logical statement to understand it, as it is meaningless without a holistic context, and so he introduces "Quine's holism" which takes every logical statement in its empirical context, from what I understand.

On another tangent, if you study the emergence of quantum logic in the Western world as opposed to classical logic, you see that some principles such as the principle of of distributivity(http://en.wikipedia.org...), originally found in classical logic, disregarded based on empiricism, though I won't argue that empiricism defines logic, but I do suppose that some of our understanding of logic, to some extent, can be reshaped by empiricism, and that you have to go back to a gestalt of empiricism to understand logic as there seems to be no proper differentiation between analytic and synthetic statements, and so no basis for an epistemological reductionism as long as most statements appear synthetic in nature, and prone to be re-defined on cultural, or at least, an empirical basis.

That's really interesting. I don't have a background in philosophy, so these are all new ideas for me.

So when you talk about epistemological reductionism, is that the idea that we can be certain of and know about external reality. Because my view is that we can't ever be sure about external facts, which means that I too dismiss epistemological reductionism - right?

But if that's true, then I don't really understand what you mean by taking a logical statement in its empirical context, because how can you? and what difference would it make anyway?

And finally, what do you mean when you say there's no proper differentiation between analytic and synthetic statements? Do you mean that synthetic statements are also psychologically constructed, given that all knowledge is constructed, and so no different in that way - or do you mean something else?

TIA :)
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 10:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 9:59:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

Beliefs ought to have everything to do with logic.

Why?

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Irrational thinking is bad and undesirably and there is nothing subjective or vague about it. Contradictions in logic lead to contradictions in belief which lead to contradictions in behavior, which finally lead to to destruction of value and becoming untrustworthy to rational people.

Could you please define rational thinking as exactly as you can?
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 10:53:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 10:19:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:59:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

Beliefs ought to have everything to do with logic.

Why?

Well the answers to both these questions are answered perfectly by objectivism which is why I self-describe as an objectivist. So without further ado:

"In philosophy, the fundamentals are metaphysics and epistemology. On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty"s competence to grasp it, you can define man"s proper ethics, politics and esthetics. (And if you make an error, you retain the means and the frame of reference necessary to correct it.) But what will you accomplish if you advocate honesty in ethics, while telling men that there is no such thing as truth, fact or reality? What will you do if you advocate political freedom on the grounds that you feel it is good, and find yourself confronting an ambitious thug who declares that he feels quite differently?

The layman"s error, in regard to philosophy, is the tendency to accept consequences while ignoring their causes"to take the end result of a long sequence of thought as the given and to regard it as "self-evident" or as an irreducible primary, while negating its preconditions."
- Ayn Rand, Philosophical Detection

If values are to be pursued, no matter what they are; you need to figure them out, and you need to figure the world out. The supremacy of reason in epistemology is not something that can be proved with reason. It is an axiom. You accept it or you don't, and if you don't there is nothing that can bind your thoughts to reality.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Irrational thinking is bad and undesirably and there is nothing subjective or vague about it. Contradictions in logic lead to contradictions in belief which lead to contradictions in behavior, which finally lead to to destruction of value and becoming untrustworthy to rational people.

Could you please define rational thinking as exactly as you can?

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one"s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one"s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. "
- Ayn Rand, via John Galt in Atlas Shrugged

Rational thinking is 'simply' the process of identification and integration while avoiding contradiction with any other knowledge one holds to (i.e. belief).

It is thinking that considers every proposition, but believes only the equivalent of sound and strong arguments and the axioms of existence and reason... whether they be spoken aloud or not.

When some one is thinking irrationally there are at least one of two signs:

1. The person refuses to provide their reasoning for their statements (no support).

2. The person refuses to care or recognize fallacies in the reasoning they put forth.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 10:53:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/23/2014 10:19:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:59:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

Beliefs ought to have everything to do with logic.

Why?

Well the answers to both these questions are answered perfectly by objectivism which is why I self-describe as an objectivist. So without further ado:

"In philosophy, the fundamentals are metaphysics and epistemology. On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty"s competence to grasp it, you can define man"s proper ethics, politics and esthetics. (And if you make an error, you retain the means and the frame of reference necessary to correct it.) But what will you accomplish if you advocate honesty in ethics, while telling men that there is no such thing as truth, fact or reality? What will you do if you advocate political freedom on the grounds that you feel it is good, and find yourself confronting an ambitious thug who declares that he feels quite differently?


The layman"s error, in regard to philosophy, is the tendency to accept consequences while ignoring their causes"to take the end result of a long sequence of thought as the given and to regard it as "self-evident" or as an irreducible primary, while negating its preconditions."
- Ayn Rand, Philosophical Detection

If values are to be pursued, no matter what they are; you need to figure them out, and you need to figure the world out. The supremacy of reason in epistemology is not something that can be proved with reason. It is an axiom. You accept it or you don't, and if you don't there is nothing that can bind your thoughts to reality.

Well yes exactly. It's an axiom, so believing it is no different to believing in god or in reincarnation.

How can a belief bind your thoughts to reality? I mean, if there's nothing else that binds thoughts and reality, then I don't see how a belief could manage it.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Irrational thinking is bad and undesirably and there is nothing subjective or vague about it. Contradictions in logic lead to contradictions in belief which lead to contradictions in behavior, which finally lead to to destruction of value and becoming untrustworthy to rational people.

Could you please define rational thinking as exactly as you can?

"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one"s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one"s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. "
- Ayn Rand, via John Galt in Atlas Shrugged

Rational thinking is 'simply' the process of identification and integration while avoiding contradiction with any other knowledge one holds to (i.e. belief).

It is thinking that considers every proposition, but believes only the equivalent of sound and strong arguments and the axioms of existence and reason... whether they be spoken aloud or not.

When some one is thinking irrationally there are at least one of two signs:

1. The person refuses to provide their reasoning for their statements (no support).

2. The person refuses to care or recognize fallacies in the reasoning they put forth.

OK. So part of thinking rationally - to you - is accepting objectivism which you've already acknowledged is a belief and cannot be proven.

So that's what I said at the beginning - people use the word "irrational" to describe belief systems they disagree with.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 12:14:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 11:44:04 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/23/2014 10:53:01 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/23/2014 10:19:15 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:59:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

Beliefs ought to have everything to do with logic.

Why?

Well the answers to both these questions are answered perfectly by objectivism which is why I self-describe as an objectivist. So without further ado:

"In philosophy, the fundamentals are metaphysics and epistemology. On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty"s competence to grasp it, you can define man"s proper ethics, politics and esthetics. (And if you make an error, you retain the means and the frame of reference necessary to correct it.) But what will you accomplish if you advocate honesty in ethics, while telling men that there is no such thing as truth, fact or reality? What will you do if you advocate political freedom on the grounds that you feel it is good, and find yourself confronting an ambitious thug who declares that he feels quite differently?


The layman"s error, in regard to philosophy, is the tendency to accept consequences while ignoring their causes"to take the end result of a long sequence of thought as the given and to regard it as "self-evident" or as an irreducible primary, while negating its preconditions."
- Ayn Rand, Philosophical Detection

If values are to be pursued, no matter what they are; you need to figure them out, and you need to figure the world out. The supremacy of reason in epistemology is not something that can be proved with reason. It is an axiom. You accept it or you don't, and if you don't there is nothing that can bind your thoughts to reality.

Well yes exactly. It's an axiom, so believing it is no different to believing in god or in reincarnation.

Well no, because those aren't axioms they are presumptions, assertions picked because people want to pick them. An axiom can't be proved but it is self-evident. No one can voice doubt over an axiom without in some way contradicting the negation of that axiom and thus implicitly accepting it.

I can voice doubt about God without implying he exists.

How can a belief bind your thoughts to reality? I mean, if there's nothing else that binds thoughts and reality, then I don't see how a belief could manage it.

Reason binds your beliefs (and thinking) to reality. Allows you to consistently believe in truth rather than falsehood and delusion. Without it, without contradiction you can literally believe anything you want. No evidence or perception truly matters.

Rational thinking is 'simply' the process of identification and integration while avoiding contradiction with any other knowledge one holds to (i.e. belief).

It is thinking that considers every proposition, but believes only the equivalent of sound and strong arguments and the axioms of existence and reason... whether they be spoken aloud or not.

When some one is thinking irrationally there are at least one of two signs:

1. The person refuses to provide their reasoning for their statements (no support).

2. The person refuses to care or recognize fallacies in the reasoning they put forth.

OK. So part of thinking rationally - to you - is accepting objectivism which you've already acknowledged is a belief and cannot be proven.

So that's what I said at the beginning - people use the word "irrational" to describe belief systems they disagree with.

Confusing cause and effect. Some people at least disagree with irrationality and thus disagree with irrational belief systems.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
OtakuJordan
Posts: 280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:37:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

They are dying alongside of spelling and grammar, apparently.
"Most of the coldness in the world is actually just people teaching lessons about the coldness in the world. And it does not remove blame from the people cranking the AC." -Ore_Ele

"You see, Adam never spoke about theology. He just had sex with Eve and died." -1970vu
tylergraham95
Posts: 1,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 9:44:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

Both of which you lack entirely.
"we dig" - Jeanette Runquist (1943 - 2015)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 9:37:45 AM, OtakuJordan wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

They are dying alongside of spelling and grammar, apparently.

Ya that too. Look at people these days on cell phones, to lazy to even type words. They don't even try. There would be more virtue in spelling it wrong, than not even trying to spell it at all.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:23:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/23/2014 9:45:37 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

If you say so.

Is it logical and rational to allow men dressed as women to use the woman's restroom? If it is, then logic and rationality are dead.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:24:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying *philosophies*

English: a dying language.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 12:15:49 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/22/2014 6:27:37 AM, rross wrote:
I just read the post from themohawkninja where he's complaining that there's not enough logic on this site.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a familiar complaint around here, that people with opposing views to the complainer lack logic or rationality.

But quite often their specific complaints have nothing to do with logic, per se. Usually it's about their beliefs, which have nothing to do with logic. Or at least, you can assume anything, as axioms (faith or beliefs), and apply logic accordingly.

It seems to me that people use "logic" and "rationality" in a very vague and subjective way. By that I mean, that any kind of bad and undesirable style of thinking can be called illogical or irrational.

Does anybody else have this impression?

In real life, all the time.
I am not learned in the ways of logic, but IRL, I have often found myself countering someone's complaint of "irrationality" with the concept of "superstitious logic". The idea being that, if you believe the superstition is true, the logic follows, so someone is still acting logical, you just disagree with the premise.

That's a good point... I've never thought of it like that.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:23:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:24:59 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying *philosophies*

English: a dying language.

At least I attempt to type out words and yes, make mistakes here and there. This is more than I can say for many on this site. At least I try to spell out everything, instead of taking the lazy way out and posting acronyms. I am sure you have never spelled a word wrong. So I guess if you do, than you too should be summarily dismissed along with any thought that was with the misspelling.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,754
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2014 5:24:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 5:23:03 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:24:59 PM, Jonbonbon wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying *philosophies*

English: a dying language.

At least I attempt to type out words and yes, make mistakes here and there. This is more than I can say for many on this site. At least I try to spell out everything, instead of taking the lazy way out and posting acronyms. I am sure you have never spelled a word wrong. So I guess if you do, than you too should be summarily dismissed along with any thought that was with the misspelling.

I'm just giving you a hard time. Don't worry about it.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 4:49:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 4:23:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:45:37 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

If you say so.

Is it logical and rational to allow men dressed as women to use the woman's restroom? If it is, then logic and rationality are dead.

Are you saying that there's no logical or rational process from which the conclusion could be that men dressed as women be allowed to use the women's restroom?

So you judge logic by the desirability of its output rather than by the quality of the process. I kind of like this in a way. It's very pragmatic.

But I don't think men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's restroom is a particularly dire outcome. Why did you choose this example?
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 6:05:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 4:49:30 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:23:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:45:37 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

If you say so.

Is it logical and rational to allow men dressed as women to use the woman's restroom? If it is, then logic and rationality are dead.

Are you saying that there's no logical or rational process from which the conclusion could be that men dressed as women be allowed to use the women's restroom?

So you judge logic by the desirability of its output rather than by the quality of the process. I kind of like this in a way. It's very pragmatic.

But I don't think men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's restroom is a particularly dire outcome. Why did you choose this example?

I rest my case
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 7:59:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/24/2014 12:14:11 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:44:04 PM, rross wrote:

Well yes exactly. It's an axiom, so believing it is no different to believing in god or in reincarnation.

Well no, because those aren't axioms they are presumptions, assertions picked because people want to pick them. An axiom can't be proved but it is self-evident. No one can voice doubt over an axiom without in some way contradicting the negation of that axiom and thus implicitly accepting it.

I can voice doubt about God without implying he exists.

That's interesting. We mean quite different things by the word "axiom". I've only ever come across axioms in maths, where they kind of define the space where the proof or analysis will be. So it might be something like X is a vector with blah properties. Or it could be that god exists. It doesn't really matter what it is, but it can't be doubted within the limits of the exercise.

So I think you have a subset of axioms that are "self-evident". But I suppose this definition itself is talking about what is evident to the human mind. It's defined in terms of human psychology.

How can a belief bind your thoughts to reality? I mean, if there's nothing else that binds thoughts and reality, then I don't see how a belief could manage it.

Reason binds your beliefs (and thinking) to reality. Allows you to consistently believe in truth rather than falsehood and delusion. Without it, without contradiction you can literally believe anything you want. No evidence or perception truly matters.

Yes but that statement that reason binds your beliefs to reality is in itself a belief.

Rational thinking is 'simply' the process of identification and integration while avoiding contradiction with any other knowledge one holds to (i.e. belief).

It is thinking that considers every proposition, but believes only the equivalent of sound and strong arguments and the axioms of existence and reason... whether they be spoken aloud or not.

When some one is thinking irrationally there are at least one of two signs:

1. The person refuses to provide their reasoning for their statements (no support).

2. The person refuses to care or recognize fallacies in the reasoning they put forth.

OK. So part of thinking rationally - to you - is accepting objectivism which you've already acknowledged is a belief and cannot be proven.

So that's what I said at the beginning - people use the word "irrational" to describe belief systems they disagree with.

Confusing cause and effect. Some people at least disagree with irrationality and thus disagree with irrational belief systems.

Yes but you say something is irrational if it contradicts what is already believed, but in this case you are defining what is already believed. So if the stuff contradicts stuff that you believe is rational, then you believe the new stuff is irrational. Have I got that right? It's no different to a Christian believing that stuff that contradicts the existence of god is irrational.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:50:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 4:49:30 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:23:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:45:37 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

If you say so.

Is it logical and rational to allow men dressed as women to use the woman's restroom? If it is, then logic and rationality are dead.

Are you saying that there's no logical or rational process from which the conclusion could be that men dressed as women be allowed to use the women's restroom?

So you judge logic by the desirability of its output rather than by the quality of the process. I kind of like this in a way. It's very pragmatic.

This is in fact the only possible way to use reason to derive an ideal. Logic works on premises, if you use only premises of fact (what is) you can never derive the ideal (what ought to be).

Thttp://en.wikipedia.org...

Values must be the foundation of all statements about the ideal. There is no 'should be' without values, and thus there cannot be a 'government should enforce' (ideal law) without values.

The problem which so many find insurmountable is this, people have different values; there are different ideals, there is only subjective ideal. This thinking ignores the fact that values are a set not a single enttity. It is possible for each of us to have a different set while having a common value, and indeed it is possible for one value to be neccesary.

There is a special word for the ideal constraints on social interaction, the word is morality.

"pragmatism" is in essense a confession of misunderstanding the facts I have just given. It presumes there exists an ideal that 'works' without relying on subjectivity, yet still has nothing to do with objective values or morality. The pragmatist must conciously or unconciously take as a granted a certain goal, they are essentially people who want to use objectivism without dealing with the philisophical foundation. They are dangerous because they often cotradict that foundation when their unspoken goals improperly seen in isolation contradict it.

But I don't think men dressed as women being allowed to use the women's restroom is a particularly dire outcome. Why did you choose this example?

I don't see why seperate restrooms even help much. There are already stalls. I've got a lot of practice ignoring totally naked attractive bodies and it's really not that hard.

At 2/25/2014 7:59:41 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/24/2014 12:14:11 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/23/2014 11:44:04 PM, rross wrote:

Well yes exactly. It's an axiom, so believing it is no different to believing in god or in reincarnation.

Well no, because those aren't axioms they are presumptions, assertions picked because people want to pick them. An axiom can't be proved but it is self-evident. No one can voice doubt over an axiom without in some way contradicting the negation of that axiom and thus implicitly accepting it.

I can voice doubt about God without implying he exists.

That's interesting. We mean quite different things by the word "axiom". I've only ever come across axioms in maths, where they kind of define the space where the proof or analysis will be. So it might be something like X is a vector with blah properties. Or it could be that god exists. It doesn't really matter what it is,

In mathematics they often blur the difference between an axiom and premise. All axioms are premises but not all premises are axioms.

but it can't be doubted within the limits of the exercise.

There you go, that is precesily the meaning vs premise. In a realm of pure logic you can doubt any premise, but in the exercise of trying to think about the universe and your place in it, there are some you can't. In a math problem, they don't want you worrying about whether the premise is true, so they 'give' it to you. You are not expected to prove it, you are not given the proof.

In philisophy an axiom is a premise that is 'given by the unverise.' It cannot be proven, but neither can it be doubted in any thinking about the universe either because you are thinking about the universe or because you are thinking (reasoning).

How can a belief bind your thoughts to reality? I mean, if there's nothing else that binds thoughts and reality, then I don't see how a belief could manage it.

Reason binds your beliefs (and thinking) to reality. Allows you to consistently believe in truth rather than falsehood and delusion. Without it, without contradiction you can literally believe anything you want. No evidence or perception truly matters.

Yes but that statement that reason binds your beliefs to reality is in itself a belief.

Yes, and obviously it would be circular to try and support reason with reason (and circularity is only a problem presuming reason). Nobody who lives outside this premise can be dealt with, they wouldn't even survive long; and they most certainly don't belong on a debate site.

So that's what I said at the beginning - people use the word "irrational" to describe belief systems they disagree with.

Confusing cause and effect. Some people at least disagree with irrationality and thus disagree with irrational belief systems.

Yes but you say something is irrational if it contradicts what is already believed, but in this case you are defining what is already believed. So if the stuff contradicts stuff that you believe is rational, then you believe the new stuff is irrational. Have I got that right? It's no different to a Christian believing that stuff that contradicts the existence of god is irrational.

Irrational without a given scope is assumed to be a global scope. With God as a given it would be irrational to believe in stuff that contradicts God. Nothing is given.

Since beleif in God is not irrational contradicting it does not contradict rational beliefs.

One thing is for sure, if you see someone assert or maintain a contradiciton; it doesn't matter what you believe they are being irrational.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 3:58:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 8:50:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/25/2014 4:49:30 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/24/2014 4:23:56 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/23/2014 9:45:37 PM, rross wrote:
At 2/22/2014 8:16:49 AM, sadolite wrote:
"logic and rationality" Two dying philosophy's

If you say so.

Is it logical and rational to allow men dressed as women to use the woman's restroom? If it is, then logic and rationality are dead.

Are you saying that there's no logical or rational process from which the conclusion could be that men dressed as women be allowed to use the women's restroom?

So you judge logic by the desirability of its output rather than by the quality of the process. I kind of like this in a way. It's very pragmatic.

This is in fact the only possible way to use reason to derive an ideal. Logic works on premises, if you use only premises of fact (what is) you can never derive the ideal (what ought to be).

Thttp://en.wikipedia.org...

Values must be the foundation of all statements about the ideal. There is no 'should be' without values, and thus there cannot be a 'government should enforce' (ideal law) without values.

Sure. This all makes sense I guess.

The problem which so many find insurmountable is this, people have different values; there are different ideals, there is only subjective ideal. This thinking ignores the fact that values are a set not a single enttity. It is possible for each of us to have a different set while having a common value, and indeed it is possible for one value to be neccesary.

I suppose you mean self-determinism?

"pragmatism" is in essense a confession of misunderstanding the facts I have just given. It presumes there exists an ideal that 'works' without relying on subjectivity,

Why do you think that? If sadolite thinks that men dressed as women using women's restrooms is absolutely undesirable, and uses that to define reason itself, how is that not subjective and pragmatic? I mean, why can't pragmatism include subjective ideals?

yet still has nothing to do with objective values or morality.

Yeah, but not everyone believes in objective morality like you do. I don't, for example, so this doesn't seem like a problem.

The pragmatist must conciously or unconciously take as a granted a certain goal, they are essentially people who want to use objectivism without dealing with the philisophical foundation. They are dangerous because they often cotradict that foundation when their unspoken goals improperly seen in isolation contradict it.

Can you give me an example?

Well yes exactly. It's an axiom, so believing it is no different to believing in god or in reincarnation.

Well no, because those aren't axioms they are presumptions, assertions picked because people want to pick them. An axiom can't be proved but it is self-evident. No one can voice doubt over an axiom without in some way contradicting the negation of that axiom and thus implicitly accepting it.

I can voice doubt about God without implying he exists.

That's interesting. We mean quite different things by the word "axiom". I've only ever come across axioms in maths, where they kind of define the space where the proof or analysis will be. So it might be something like X is a vector with blah properties. Or it could be that god exists. It doesn't really matter what it is,

In mathematics they often blur the difference between an axiom and premise. All axioms are premises but not all premises are axioms.

but it can't be doubted within the limits of the exercise.

There you go, that is precesily the meaning vs premise. In a realm of pure logic you can doubt any premise, but in the exercise of trying to think about the universe and your place in it, there are some you can't. In a math problem, they don't want you worrying about whether the premise is true, so they 'give' it to you. You are not expected to prove it, you are not given the proof.

In philisophy an axiom is a premise that is 'given by the unverise.' It cannot be proven, but neither can it be doubted in any thinking about the universe either because you are thinking about the universe or because you are thinking (reasoning).

Okay, well thanks for that explanation. I think I understand your original point much better now. So going back to it, I get stuck on this part:

"On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty"s competence to grasp it..."

To me, those are the same thing. Rand puts them as two separate things. Logic is just an evolved competency in humans, same as detecting hot and cold, for example. We know that we're right about detecting heat because we compare our information with other humans and across sense domains (hot things glow red) and with our logical consistency (the pot has been in the fire and so should be hot). But our senses can deceive us. We can feel hot when there's no external heat, and in the same way we can "falsely" perceive logical coherency.

Reason binds your beliefs (and thinking) to reality. Allows you to consistently believe in truth rather than falsehood and delusion. Without it, without contradiction you can literally believe anything you want. No evidence or perception truly matters.

Not really. You're thinking in extremes. It's possible to think in terms of likelihood or maybe I mean preference or salience. For example, I'm looking at this computer, and it may or may not exist in some sort of external reality, but I prefer to assume it does exist. You, Adreamofliberty, may or may not be a real person. I think your existence is slightly more uncertain than my computer's existence - also, you may be trolling - but on the whole, the interpretation of real person in a genuine conversation has salience for me. But because this assumption has more uncertainty, I keep my mind open for evidence of an alternative interpretation. Degrees of uncertainty, see.

Yes but that statement that reason binds your beliefs to reality is in itself a belief.

Yes, and obviously it would be circular to try and support reason with reason (and circularity is only a problem presuming reason). Nobody who lives outside this premise can be dealt with, they wouldn't even survive long; and they most certainly don't belong on a debate site.

But as I said before, logic may be culturally specific. Especially this idea of contradiction. Some styles of thinking seem to deliberately welcome it. Koans for example. That's against logic, but zen buddhists live for ages and it would be AWESOME if there were more of them on this site.

So that's what I said at the beginning - people use the word "irrational" to describe belief systems they disagree with.

Confusing cause and effect. Some people at least disagree with irrationality and thus disagree with irrational belief systems.

Yes but you say something is irrational if it contradicts what is already believed, but in this case you are defining what is already believed. So if the stuff contradicts stuff that you believe is rational, then you believe the new stuff is irrational. Have I got that right? It's no different to a Christian believing that stuff that contradicts the existence of god is irrational.

Irrational without a given scope is assumed to be a global scope. With God as a given it would be irrational to believe in stuff that contradicts God. Nothing is given.

Since beleif in God is not irrational contradicting it does not contradict rational beliefs.

One thing is for sure, if you see someone assert or maintain a contradiciton; it doesn't matter what you believe they are being irrational.

Or you're not understanding them properly.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 10:15:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/26/2014 3:58:08 AM, rross wrote:
At 2/25/2014 8:50:33 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
The problem which so many find insurmountable is this, people have different values; there are different ideals, there is only subjective ideal. This thinking ignores the fact that values are a set not a single enttity. It is possible for each of us to have a different set while having a common value, and indeed it is possible for one value to be neccesary.
I suppose you mean self-determinism?]

Of course.

Why do you think that? If sadolite thinks that men dressed as women using women's restrooms is absolutely undesirable, and uses that to define reason itself, how is that not subjective and pragmatic? I mean, why can't pragmatism include subjective ideals?

Reason is already defined, I will not entertain the notion that it is equivalent to what sadolite finds desirable. Pragmatist believe they are side-stepping morality and subjectvitity. Only a full on admission that what they consider practical only matters to them would count as a proper acceptance of the subjectivity of their system.

Yeah, but not everyone believes in objective morality like you do. I don't, for example, so this doesn't seem like a problem.

Subjective morality when properly confined to the scope of it's support is nothing more than your own conscience. By your own admission there is no reason anyone else should adopt it unless you force them to. The problem is when someone like you or sadolite starts talking about law and what you will or will not tolerate.

Can you give me an example?

Taxes, the implicit goal when someone says it's a practical necessity (or often just necessity) is a government with the power to maintain a minimum standard of living for all people at any cost.

To me, those are the same thing. Rand puts them as two separate things.

Well you may not have encountered them, but there are philosophers who speak of knowledge that can only be acquired by non-rational means. Such as divine revelation or a whisper heard only in the absence of all judgement.

Logic is just an evolved competency in humans, same as detecting hot and cold, for example. We know that we're right about detecting heat because we compare our information with other humans and across sense domains (hot things glow red) and with our logical consistency (the pot has been in the fire and so should be hot). But our senses can deceive us. We can feel hot when there's no external heat, and in the same way we can "falsely" perceive logical coherency.

It is not just an evolved sense. Surely it is an evolved feature that our brains are capable of logic, but to say logic is evolved; it's again ignoring a common cause. Natural selection would select for the ability to perform logic because it would be capable of conceptualizing and reliably predicting the nature of the external universe (and thus facilitating goals).

Logic is perfect, it is not a hybrid with previous instincts and perceptions. Our behavior is certainly a composite of those, but when I say 'logic' I have already implied that that which can reliably used to infer truth has been isolated and gathered under that concept.

You tried to use logic to make an analogy with a sensory perception and draw conclusions from it. There is no escaping the use of logic, the human brain is wired to try; all that we can do is make sure it's consistent and sound.

Our senses do not deceive us, not if they are understood properly. They are instruments, like any other piece of lap equipment interacting with the universe their behavior depends on their nature. It is in fact logic which allows us to make the connection between sensation and reality. What we have before we are consciously aware of this is none the less a logical concept formation system.

We know that our senses are ultimately just biological equipment hooked up to nerves. You simulate the nerve signal you create the sensation. You 'trick' the equipment you create the sensation. It is only logic that saves us from deception just as it is only logic that allows perception. Logic says that just because your shape-recognition 'software' perceives a shape does not mean it exists exactly as your automatic perception 'claims.' We know that our sight is the impression of light on our retina and it is only the automatic processing of the image that resolves it into 3 dimensional objects. That is not a rational process (strictly speaking) it is a much more primitive process (and good thing too, shape recognition software hasn't come close).

When you feel warmth you know that nerve endings are being fired in a way similar to what would be caused by a high temperature, but you can't be sure from that alone. You must check to see if everything else is consistent and only then are you justified in believing the temperature of your tissue is actually rising.

Not really. You're thinking in extremes.

I'm thinking in discrete concepts. Helps prevent conflation and vagueness.

It's possible to think in terms of likelihood or maybe I mean preference or salience.

Likelihood of what? That something is true rather than false? That presumes the dichotomy as well. Preference = "anything you want."

but I prefer to assume it does exist

It seems my extreme thinking predicted this scenario admirably :p

Why are you talking with a phantom then?

But as I said before, logic may be culturally specific.

Particular arguments may originate from a culture. Logic is not culture specific, it's not species specific, it's not even life specific (these 'potential' computers are performing thousands of logical operations per second.

Especially this idea of contradiction. Some styles of thinking seem to deliberately welcome it. Koans for example.

Oh yes, some do embrace it. They are irrational. The heart of reason is discrimination, to distinguish the true from the false. The implied from the unrelated. This is certainly not PC, but the people who embraced it generally sat in whatever static state of knowledge and life that they have always had while the people who didn't accept contradiction built a Saturn V rocket and landed on the moon, the same moon which the mystics couldn't figure out whether it was a sphere or a disk and settled for saying it was a god at the same time not caring about whether it was contradictory.

Don't misunderstand me, logic is not validated by 'getting stuff' through it, there can be no validation since validation is ultimately a concept depending on logic to have meaning.

Or you're not understanding them properly.

i.e. if they don't assert and maintain a contradiction.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.