Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Logic should not be trusted.

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:22:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.

Does he even need an argument? He's just doubting.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:27:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:22:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.

Does he even need an argument? He's just doubting.

How can one doubt without using logic? In fact, he wrote "even the most basic axiom could be false" what else could he have used but logic to find that conclusion?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:27:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:22:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.

Does he even need an argument? He's just doubting.

How can one doubt without using logic? In fact, he wrote "even the most basic axiom could be false" what else could he have used but logic to find that conclusion?

It seemed he was referring to logical axioms like the ones used in classical logic. Could you show me which logical axiom relates to grounds for doubt?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:29:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:27:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:22:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.

Does he even need an argument? He's just doubting.

How can one doubt without using logic? In fact, he wrote "even the most basic axiom could be false" what else could he have used but logic to find that conclusion?

Arguing for the falsehood of that requires the assumption of the law of non-contradiction i.e. one is doubting and utilizing logic at the same time.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:29:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:27:17 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:22:51 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:16:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:12:43 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:08:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

You're going to lose for obvious reasons.

He'll probably lose because he's facing a very intelligent debater whose received much more education in the area, but position he states in the debate is IMO heavily one sided towards him. He's basically asking Con to refute his grounds for doubting which is a little ridiculous because one can doubt anything to any degree - there's no external, gold standard for doubt we just call people who doubt everything sophists and idiots.

That's not exactly what I had in mind. I was thinking that logic is a presumption in the act of arguing. So by doubting logic, he doubts his own argument. Con doesn't actually have to argue anything.

Does he even need an argument? He's just doubting.

How can one doubt without using logic? In fact, he wrote "even the most basic axiom could be false" what else could he have used but logic to find that conclusion?

Arguing for the falsehood of that requires the assumption of the law of non-contradiction i.e. one is doubting and utilizing logic at the same time.

I don't think he's arguing for its falsehood, but rather just saying it shouldn't be trusted 100%.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:42:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:31:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I definitely think recursion beats the argument.

Either it IS true, in which case it's not something you can demonstrate logically (since the conclusion implies that the argument isn't trustworthy), or it isn't, in which case Con wins anyway. :P

All he's asserting in the debate is that logic could be false. IMO the thread title is just him being provocative. How would one go about convincing him that logic can be known with complete certainty if he's already doubted the most basic mechanisms of the human mind as he's done in the debate? The burden of proof he's set there is clearly impossible to fulfill.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:49:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:42:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:31:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I definitely think recursion beats the argument.

Either it IS true, in which case it's not something you can demonstrate logically (since the conclusion implies that the argument isn't trustworthy), or it isn't, in which case Con wins anyway. :P

All he's asserting in the debate is that logic could be false. IMO the thread title is just him being provocative. How would one go about convincing him that logic can be known with complete certainty if he's already doubted the most basic mechanisms of the human mind as he's done in the debate? The burden of proof he's set there is clearly impossible to fulfill.

I think you're wrong. Unfortunately, you will have to wait until InquireTruth makes his first argument to find out.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 9:58:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it was just one I came up with a while ago.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:04:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:58:16 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it was just one I came up with a while ago.

What exactly is your objection to it?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:10:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 9:42:52 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:31:26 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I definitely think recursion beats the argument.

Either it IS true, in which case it's not something you can demonstrate logically (since the conclusion implies that the argument isn't trustworthy), or it isn't, in which case Con wins anyway. :P

All he's asserting in the debate is that logic could be false. IMO the thread title is just him being provocative. How would one go about convincing him that logic can be known with complete certainty if he's already doubted the most basic mechanisms of the human mind as he's done in the debate? The burden of proof he's set there is clearly impossible to fulfill.

Why would you ask the nihilist this question? :P
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:11:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:04:54 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:58:16 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it was just one I came up with a while ago.

What exactly is your objection to it?

Logic is founded in intuitive beliefs therefore not all logical facts are based off of other logical facts. However, the fact that our logic is founded in intuition also raises an objection to support your side.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:13:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:11:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/25/2012 10:04:54 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:58:16 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it was just one I came up with a while ago.

What exactly is your objection to it?

Logic is founded in intuitive beliefs therefore not all logical facts are based off of other logical facts. However, the fact that our logic is founded in intuition also raises an objection to support your side.

what are some intuitive beliefs?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:34:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 10:13:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/25/2012 10:11:12 PM, phantom wrote:
At 6/25/2012 10:04:54 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 6/25/2012 9:58:16 PM, phantom wrote:
P.1 All logical facts are derived from other logical facts.
P.2 Therefore logic is circular.
C: Therefore logic cannot be trusted.

Not that I agree with that argument, but it was just one I came up with a while ago.

What exactly is your objection to it?

Logic is founded in intuitive beliefs therefore not all logical facts are based off of other logical facts. However, the fact that our logic is founded in intuition also raises an objection to support your side.

what are some intuitive beliefs?

I explained it in your thread. You stopped responding. However, the law of non-contradiction is one example of such a belief.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2012 10:46:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/25/2012 8:30:45 PM, MouthWash wrote:
I'm tired of waiting. Someone accept (no trolling): http://www.debate.org...

How can logic not be trusted?

That's like saying multiplication can't be trusted.

Logic describes relations between propositions. There are different logical systems which use different relations (ex. paraconsistent vs classical vs. modal logic etc) that are defined beforehand.

The truth or falsity of the propositions themselves is not relevant to whether logic works. It is only relevant to whether a particular logical argument is sound.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2012 1:09:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: just use crack instead
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL