Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

logic and reason

sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.
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%
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 6:41:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not everyone has access to the same information.

Not all information is accurate, either.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 6:54:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

Logic and reason can be used in different ways. There is still choice involved with logic and reason. You may find one hypothesis logically possible and of reasonable suggestion. I may find a different hypothesis equally or more logical and equally or more reasonably suggested. Logic and reason are tools. Tools of probability and information usage. One logical possibility being wrong is not delusional as long as the original hypothesis was indeed logical and rational based on that person's level of retained information at the time of the hypothesis.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 7:07:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:54:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

Logic and reason can be used in different ways. There is still choice involved with logic and reason. You may find one hypothesis logically possible and of reasonable suggestion. I may find a different hypothesis equally or more logical and equally or more reasonably suggested. Logic and reason are tools. Tools of probability and information usage. One logical possibility being wrong is not delusional as long as the original hypothesis was indeed logical and rational based on that person's level of retained information at the time of the hypothesis.

So it is a zero sum game. The smartest most knowledgable person in the history of all man kind would put forth the most logical and reasonable answer. Assuming they are or were privy to all information about everything.
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%
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

What exactly would you define as "reason?"

Also, do you apply this to just conversations regarding "is" questions about the state of reality or does this apply to both "is" and "ought" statements?
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:12:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 7:25:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

What exactly would you define as "reason?"

Also, do you apply this to just conversations regarding "is" questions about the state of reality or does this apply to both "is" and "ought" statements?

I am appling it to philosphy and social issues mostly.
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%
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 9:15:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sadolite, I think you're on to something. The intellectual elite hoist this concept of "logic" and "reason" onto the masses in an attempt to control them and crush thinking that deviates from this norm with labels like "illogical" or "irrational." Personally, I do most of my thinking with my gut. Trust me, I've been trying to revise the rules for syllogisms in my logic textbook for ages but no one has listened.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 9:50:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 9:15:22 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Sadolite, I think you're on to something. The intellectual elite hoist this concept of "logic" and "reason" onto the masses in an attempt to control them and crush thinking that deviates from this norm with labels like "illogical" or "irrational." Personally, I do most of my thinking with my gut. Trust me, I've been trying to revise the rules for syllogisms in my logic textbook for ages but no one has listened.

Can't tell if serious.............
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:05:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

Insufficient data.

Without specific details, I'm afraid your questions can not be respectfully answered. It's quite possible that "everybody" could be wrong despite the quest to be correct. It's also possible (though less likely) that an entire group of people could be delusional.

But I do think your point is a good one to consider; that it is all too common for all our efforts to get to the turth of the matter and to establish those truths as facts that we can all agree on.... more often than not, we (mankind) fall(s) short of that goal.

I think there is more than one reason for it, too. The main one being that each individual may have a slightly different "agenda" or "desired outcome" which impairs their ability to remain completely objective.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:33:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 8:12:04 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 7:25:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

What exactly would you define as "reason?"

Also, do you apply this to just conversations regarding "is" questions about the state of reality or does this apply to both "is" and "ought" statements?

I am appling it to philosphy and social issues mostly.

Well, do you hold there is an objective moral system? If not, then we shouldn't expect people to necessarily come to the same conclusion on issues that have a moral component.

Again, how would you define reason? It's not a trivial question by any means.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 10:48:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's a very interesting concept. I think the human subconscious is so much more informed then we realize. So many times I read an argument that I disagree with but have no logical rebuttal against. It would be easy to accept that I am wrong but if I stop and think for a few minutes (or sometimes hours) I find that there was a good reason I disagreed, I just needed to define the concept that was buried within and find the words to express it.

What is so intriguing about debating is that its not only about reaching deep to understand your opponents arguments but also your own. We can all use logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion but since we all have different life experiences the premise of that reasoning will always be slightly different.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 7:57:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 10:48:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very interesting concept. I think the human subconscious is so much more informed then we realize. So many times I read an argument that I disagree with but have no logical rebuttal against. It would be easy to accept that I am wrong but if I stop and think for a few minutes (or sometimes hours) I find that there was a good reason I disagreed, I just needed to define the concept that was buried within and find the words to express it.

What is so intriguing about debating is that its not only about reaching deep to understand your opponents arguments but also your own. We can all use logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion but since we all have different life experiences the premise of that reasoning will always be slightly different.

"We can all use logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion but since we all have different life experiences the premise of that reasoning will always be slightly different."

So could it be said that all life experiences are valid regardless if someone thinks yours are delusional?
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%
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 9:16:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 10:48:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very interesting concept. I think the human subconscious is so much more informed then we realize. So many times I read an argument that I disagree with but have no logical rebuttal against. It would be easy to accept that I am wrong but if I stop and think for a few minutes (or sometimes hours) I find that there was a good reason I disagreed, I just needed to define the concept that was buried within and find the words to express it.

What is so intriguing about debating is that its not only about reaching deep to understand your opponents arguments but also your own. We can all use logic and reasoning to come to a conclusion but since we all have different life experiences the premise of that reasoning will always be slightly different.

My perspective is closely aligned with yours. In the end you start to realize that logic and reason are tools to explain your subjective perception of reality. New information always forces one to re-evaluate one's perspective. Since it is impossible to objectively know all information through a subjective mind...one's perspective can always logically and reasonably be reshaped in a new light.

Using logic and reason does not necessarily make something objectively true, it just makes something possibly true in reflection of that mind's inventory and comprehension of information it has absorbed thus far.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 9:44:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:16:12 AM, Tiel wrote:
My perspective is closely aligned with yours. In the end you start to realize that logic and reason are tools to explain your subjective perception of reality. New information always forces one to re-evaluate one's perspective. Since it is impossible to objectively know all information through a subjective mind...one's perspective can always logically and reasonably be reshaped in a new light.

Using logic and reason does not necessarily make something objectively true, it just makes something possibly true in reflection of that mind's inventory and comprehension of information it has absorbed thus far.

We agree on something :)

Logic is not perfect by any means. That is why an argument can be valid and not sound, which is problematic to say the least. People can also make valid arguments but come up with 2 totally different ideas as the OP said. There's also the fact that almost everything boils down to a paradox, including the validity of logic itself.
President of DDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 10:17:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:44:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:16:12 AM, Tiel wrote:
My perspective is closely aligned with yours. In the end you start to realize that logic and reason are tools to explain your subjective perception of reality. New information always forces one to re-evaluate one's perspective. Since it is impossible to objectively know all information through a subjective mind...one's perspective can always logically and reasonably be reshaped in a new light.

Using logic and reason does not necessarily make something objectively true, it just makes something possibly true in reflection of that mind's inventory and comprehension of information it has absorbed thus far.

We agree on something :)

Logic is not perfect by any means. That is why an argument can be valid and not sound, which is problematic to say the least. People can also make valid arguments but come up with 2 totally different ideas as the OP said. There's also the fact that almost everything boils down to a paradox, including the validity of logic itself.

Sometimes, the paradox is a matter of consequences (intended or not) and I think that in many cases, the consequences or a fear of consequences will often have an affect on the outcome of an argument. This makes a resolution more 'politically' driven and therefore much less objectively determined.

All of which begs the question: "Where do we go from there?"
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 11:02:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 10:17:52 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:44:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:16:12 AM, Tiel wrote:
My perspective is closely aligned with yours. In the end you start to realize that logic and reason are tools to explain your subjective perception of reality. New information always forces one to re-evaluate one's perspective. Since it is impossible to objectively know all information through a subjective mind...one's perspective can always logically and reasonably be reshaped in a new light.

Using logic and reason does not necessarily make something objectively true, it just makes something possibly true in reflection of that mind's inventory and comprehension of information it has absorbed thus far.

We agree on something :)

Logic is not perfect by any means. That is why an argument can be valid and not sound, which is problematic to say the least. People can also make valid arguments but come up with 2 totally different ideas as the OP said. There's also the fact that almost everything boils down to a paradox, including the validity of logic itself.

Sometimes, the paradox is a matter of consequences (intended or not) and I think that in many cases, the consequences or a fear of consequences will often have an affect on the outcome of an argument. This makes a resolution more 'politically' driven and therefore much less objectively determined.

All of which begs the question: "Where do we go from there?"

"Where do we go from there?"

With regard to politics and social matters and human behavior, I believe a vote is in order on all of these related issues. May the least delusional idea or policy as perceived by all voters win and the looser concede and abide and not stir up strife until the next vote if support exists for another vote to change that policy. It should not be decided by courts of a few men based on their life experiences and logic alone.
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%
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:28:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 6:41:23 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Not everyone has access to the same information.

Not all information is accurate, either.

I was going to type a response, thought there would be someone who already said it, here it is...
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 3:30:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 7:07:33 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:54:53 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/25/2011 6:11:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
Logic and reason, HMMM that has been the answer to many posts in many forums, to many different questions. Is logic and reason a zero sum game to the smartest, most knowledgeable, wisest person who ever lived? If two people of equal intelligence use their logic and reason and come up with two completely different answers to the same question, is one of them delusional? Or are both delusional?

If you ask the same Question of other people and get even more different answers, are they delusional and if not who decides who is and who isn't? How do we know if the person deciding isn't delusional if they come up with a different answer?

Logic and reason of the same intelligence dictate the same answer. If not, why is the other person not delusional? Logic and reason are not opinion so we can count that out.

Logic and reason can be used in different ways. There is still choice involved with logic and reason. You may find one hypothesis logically possible and of reasonable suggestion. I may find a different hypothesis equally or more logical and equally or more reasonably suggested. Logic and reason are tools. Tools of probability and information usage. One logical possibility being wrong is not delusional as long as the original hypothesis was indeed logical and rational based on that person's level of retained information at the time of the hypothesis.

So it is a zero sum game. The smartest most knowledgable person in the history of all man kind would put forth the most logical and reasonable answer. Assuming they are or were privy to all information about everything.

There is no smartest person, how can you determine that?

Everyone doesn't gauge intelligence in the same ways...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 7:51:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/25/2011 10:48:25 PM, Double_R wrote:
It's a very interesting concept. I think the human subconscious is so much more informed then we realize. So many times I read an argument that I disagree with but have no logical rebuttal against. It would be easy to accept that I am wrong but if I stop and think for a few minutes (or sometimes hours) I find that there was a good reason I disagreed, I just needed to define the concept that was buried within and find the words to express it.

John Dewey's Quest for Certainty talks about this and calls these intuitions judments of "taste" it's a good book 8)

http://books.google.com...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:09:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"There is no smartest person, how can you determine that?"

Probably the same way you determine how stupid someone is. "Idiot" and "stupid" and "delusional" are determined on a daily basis on this site. I could do a montage that would last for hours. If you added up the number of times someone was told they were smart compared to being an idiot. Everyone on this site would be considered a stupid, delusional, idiot.
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%
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 8:40:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 11:02:04 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/26/2011 10:17:52 AM, Chuz-Life wrote:

Sometimes, the paradox is a matter of consequences (intended or not) and I think that in many cases, the consequences or a fear of consequences will often have an affect on the outcome of an argument. This makes a resolution more 'politically' driven and therefore much less objectively determined.

All of which begs the question: "Where do we go from there?"


"Where do we go from there?"

With regard to politics and social matters and human behavior, I believe a vote is in order on all of these related issues. May the least delusional idea or policy as perceived by all voters win and the looser concede and abide and not stir up strife until the next vote if support exists for another vote to change that policy. It should not be decided by courts of a few men based on their life experiences and logic alone.

A consensus then?

Not that I am completely against the usefulness of gaining a consensus,... but (sans slavery and the fact that it was once legal and accepted).... A consensus is not always infallible. A combined effort (two headsare better than one?) may have some advantages towards examining an issue from multiple perspectives for example..... But in reality, a group (sum) of minds is not much more likely to break any new ground than is the smartest mind of the group.

Also, there are a lot of dynamics in play with a "consensus" type approach. Such as, how well the individuals in the group can challenge the views of their peers,... or how well they can communicate their own... etc.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 9:53:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Classical logic is correct because it's stipulative. An atomic sentence is true or false because we say so. You could construct logics in which atomic sentences can have any number of possible truth values (though they get really awful to work with). An operator does what it does because we say so. Essentially logic is just a tool invented by humans to assist their thinking. You don't have to like it, but it's helped us a lot as far as constructing computers goes.

When we say something is "illogical," we rarely use the term correctly.
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 10:09:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 9:44:55 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 9/26/2011 9:16:12 AM, Tiel wrote:
My perspective is closely aligned with yours. In the end you start to realize that logic and reason are tools to explain your subjective perception of reality. New information always forces one to re-evaluate one's perspective. Since it is impossible to objectively know all information through a subjective mind...one's perspective can always logically and reasonably be reshaped in a new light.

Using logic and reason does not necessarily make something objectively true, it just makes something possibly true in reflection of that mind's inventory and comprehension of information it has absorbed thus far.

We agree on something :)

Logic is not perfect by any means. That is why an argument can be valid and not sound, which is problematic to say the least. People can also make valid arguments but come up with 2 totally different ideas as the OP said. There's also the fact that almost everything boils down to a paradox, including the validity of logic itself.

I'm very glad to see that we have found an area where we agree. You are one of the more respected and mature members on this site.
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 1:00:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wow, I can't believe no one has said it yet. Knowledge has little to do with logic and reason. You could have the knowledge of an entire library, but if you don't understand the laws of logic and rules of logic then a very knowledgable man cannot be said to be the most logical or reasonable.

I can't stand when people evaluate a proposition and say "hmm, that sounds logical." NO, IT DOESNT. Did you insert the proposition into syllogistic form and conclude that a premise doesn't follow thus making it illogical? No. Sometimes you can just figure out in your head if a proposition is logical, but people still rarely use the process to conclude that "this is logical."

If someone says "pink unicorns exist on Niburu," most will be inclined to say "that's not logical or reasonable." Why is it not though? That proposition does not violate any laws of logic, it's merely a statement not supported by evidence.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2011 3:03:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/3/2011 1:00:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Wow, I can't believe no one has said it yet. Knowledge has little to do with logic and reason. You could have the knowledge of an entire library, but if you don't understand the laws of logic and rules of logic then a very knowledgable man cannot be said to be the most logical or reasonable.

I can't stand when people evaluate a proposition and say "hmm, that sounds logical." NO, IT DOESNT. Did you insert the proposition into syllogistic form and conclude that a premise doesn't follow thus making it illogical? No. Sometimes you can just figure out in your head if a proposition is logical, but people still rarely use the process to conclude that "this is logical."

If someone says "pink unicorns exist on Niburu," most will be inclined to say "that's not logical or reasonable." Why is it not though? That proposition does not violate any laws of logic, it's merely a statement not supported by evidence.

How would you define "reason?"

Also, do you consider knowledge to be "justified, true beliefs" or do you have some other definition?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 1:24:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It seems to me that logic is deterministic: given A and B then C. Reason includes probabilistic outcomes as well. If you want to maximize the chances of C, then do A and B. Someone with greater knowledge of the relevant probabilities will always have greater chances of achieving the goal, but no guarantee. Sometimes walking is faster than driving, but the probability is with driving.

So it would be a zero-sum game in sense described if all problems were solvable. consider Sartre's "Should I go to war and protect my country, or should I stay home and care for my aged mother?" Sartre could only say, "You are free, therefore choose." I think that reflects some problems not having solutions.

The classic trouble with smart people is an error in induction. They think, "I have successfully solved problems 1, 2, ...N. N is large. So therefore I am probably an expert on all things." It's easy to find Nobel Prize winners with goofy opinions on subjects they know nothing about.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2011 2:08:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd like to find the "smartest person ever" as the OP suggests and put him in the jungle with the local tribes "smartest person ever" and see who survives a month.

But hey, knowing first order logic is cool too.