Dear Worms. SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

[Old Things]

@Old Things I don't understand why you're stating obvious things. What are you interpreting about my writing?

@scorpiomover made the case that if people only formed decisions based on reason and logic, people would be free from fallacy.

I simply was pointing out that no, logic can lead someone astray, and eitherway, people don't depend on logic to begin with.

And he is right and you are wrong.

 

[Old Things]

If you wanted to say, "Not every belief is logical" that's perfectly fine and that would be true. But to say that the rules of logic are subjective is idiotic.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

But to say that the rules of logic are subjective is idiotic.

That's just lazy strawmanning now.

If that is what is charging your words and is what you have surmised from what I've written then I think we're done here.

It's very petulant of you really. It would feel like an insult to your intelligence to explain what is written right there in the forum.

 

[Old Things]

But to say that the rules of logic are subjective is idiotic.

That's just lazy strawmanning now.

If that is what is charging your words and is what you have surmised from what I've written then I think we're done here.

It's very petulant of you really. It would feel like an insult to your intelligence to explain what is written right there in the forum.

Except you said,

In any case I could write any false premise and the conclusion would be true.

1. Pigs can fly.
C. I'm the president.

Same with if we make a conclusion about something that does not exist.
1. Unicorns do not exist.
C.All unicorns are tigers.

And there is NOTHING true about any of this.

 

[Black Rose]

But to say that the rules of logic are subjective is idiotic.

That's just lazy strawmanning now.

If that is what is charging your words and is what you have surmised from what I've written then I think we're done here.

It's very petulant of you really. It would feel like an insult to your intelligence to explain what is written right there in the forum.

Except you said,

In any case I could write any false premise and the conclusion would be true.

1. Pigs can fly.
C. I'm the president.

Same with if we make a conclusion about something that does not exist.
1. Unicorns do not exist.
C.All unicorns are tigers.

And there is NOTHING true about any of this.

Trump or Biden could say pigs could fly and still be president.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

In any case I could write any false premise and the conclusion would be true.

1. Pigs can fly.
C. I'm the president.

Same with if we make a conclusion about something that does not exist.
1. Unicorns do not exist.
C.All unicorns are tigers.

And there is NOTHING true about any of this.

If I interchange the vocabulary, say that I will call my socks, cash money. I will call my cash bills, socks.

Now I can say that I wear my money on my feet, and I pay for gas with my socks.

This is logical.

Hypothetically, I can take dollar bills and knit them into socks.
Hypothetically, I can also own a business where I sell socks and this is my primary income.

I can now say, in way that you would find more acceptable, that I wear my money on my feet, and I pay for gas with my socks.

Logic is not subjective. Logic depends on how you use logic. I don't even know where you got that notion from. What do you think I'm trying to say lmao?

 

[Old Things]

Trump or Biden could say pigs could fly and still be president.

Yes, what is your point? Biden is currently president. If Biden said it he would still be president. People say all kinds of stupid stuff all the time that does not change the facts.

Look, I know you try and be a peacekeeper or whatever, but this line of thought is stupid.

It's about what is a valid argument. Accidental truths do not infringe on the rules of logic.

A valid argument would be,

You must be a member of INTPforum to post on that forum.
Black Rose has posted on INTPforum
Therefore,
Black Rose is a member of INTPforum.

That is a sound argument.

Even if I said,

Pigs fly,
Therefore,
Black Rose is a member of INTPforum

The conclusion would be true, but the argument would NOT be valid. Why? Because the premise has NOTHING to do with the conclusion.

Or I could say,

Black Rose is a member of INTPforum
Therefore,
pigs fly

And again the argument is not valid even though the premise is true. Why? Because the conclusion does not FOLLOW FROM the premise.

 

[Old Things]

In any case I could write any false premise and the conclusion would be true.

1. Pigs can fly.
C. I'm the president.

Same with if we make a conclusion about something that does not exist.
1. Unicorns do not exist.
C.All unicorns are tigers.

And there is NOTHING true about any of this.

If I interchange the vocabulary, say that I will call my socks, cash money. I will call my cash bills, socks.

Now I can say that I wear my money on my feet, and I pay for gas with my socks.

This is logical.

Hypothetically, I can take dollar bills and knit them into socks.
Hypothetically, I can also own a business where I sell socks and this is my primary income.

I can now say, in way that you would find more acceptable, that I wear my money on my feet, and I pay for gas with my socks.

Logic is not subjective. Logic depends on how you use logic. I don't even know where you got that notion from. What do you think I'm trying to say lmao?

For the argument to be VALID, you would need to include all the extra PREMISES in the argument. Otherwise, you are making an argument that is NOT VALID because there are HIDDEN PREMISES. The conclusion has to FOLLOW FROM THE PREMISES.

 

[Black Rose]

It's about what is a valid argument. Accidental truths do not infringe on the rules of logic.

It is about you taking everything out of context of the conversion between @EndogenousRebel and @scorpiomover

you think you have to defend logic when you don't because you are wrong about what the debate is about. @EndogenousRebel does not and is not saying what you think he is saying, your internal logic is flawed in this instance.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Logic ≠ Argumentation

I'm sorry dude, facts don't care about your feelings

Vacuous truth (logic)

Refers to a logical or mathematical statement which is formally true but has no expressive power.

fallacies.online

 

[Old Things]

It's about what is a valid argument. Accidental truths do not infringe on the rules of logic.

It is about you taking everything out of context of the conversion between @EndogenousRebel and @scorpiomover

you think you have to defend logic when you don't because you are wrong about what the debate is about. @EndogenousRebel does not and is not saying what you think he is saying, your internal logic is flawed in this instance.

Alright, show me how then. Maybe you could even formulate it into a valid argument so I know you know what you are talking about.

 

[Old Things]

Logic ≠ Argumentation

I'm sorry dude, facts don't care about your feelings

Vacuous truth (logic)

Refers to a logical or mathematical statement which is formally true but has no expressive power.

fallacies.online

Argumentation is a FORM of LOGIC.

 

[Black Rose]

It's about what is a valid argument. Accidental truths do not infringe on the rules of logic.

It is about you taking everything out of context of the conversion between @EndogenousRebel and @scorpiomover

you think you have to defend logic when you don't because you are wrong about what the debate is about. @EndogenousRebel does not and is not saying what you think he is saying, your internal logic is flawed in this instance.

Alright, show me how then. Maybe you could even formulate it into a valid argument so I know you know what you are talking about.

1. people think they are logical
2. people make valid claims
3. people use premises to support these claims

A) these claims are, well valid, do not follow from the premises
B) people claim that they do because of "logic"

C1. people are irrational
C2. people cannot be trusted even if they claim to be "logical"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

For the argument to be VALID, you would need to include all the extra PREMISES in the argument. Otherwise, you are making an argument that is NOT VALID because there are HIDDEN PREMISES. The conclusion has to FOLLOW FROM THE PREMISES.

I would need to define all axioms. Meaning I would have to write like 10 rules.
The would look something like this.

1. -∃xUx A
2. ∀x-Ux 1 QE
3. -∀x(Ux→Tx) IP
4. ∃x-(Ux→Tx) 3 QE
5. -(Ua→Ta) 4 ∃O
6. -(-UavTa) 5 Imp
7. --Ua&-Ta 6 DM
8. --Ua 7 Simp
9. -Ua 2 ∀O
10. --Ua&-Ua 8,9 Conj
11. ∀x(Ux→Tx) 3-10 IP

I think you should just take my word for it dude. It's a logical argument.

 

[Old Things]

It's about what is a valid argument. Accidental truths do not infringe on the rules of logic.

It is about you taking everything out of context of the conversion between @EndogenousRebel and @scorpiomover

you think you have to defend logic when you don't because you are wrong about what the debate is about. @EndogenousRebel does not and is not saying what you think he is saying, your internal logic is flawed in this instance.

Alright, show me how then. Maybe you could even formulate it into a valid argument so I know you know what you are talking about.

1. people think they are logical
2. people make valid claims
3. people use premises to support these claims

A) these claims are, well valid, do not follow from the premises
B) people claim that they do because of "logic"

C1. people are irrational
C2. people cannot be trusted even if they claim to be "logical"

You need to word it correctly because currently, it is not a valid argument.

 

[Old Things]

I would need to define all axioms. Meaning I would have to write like 10 rules.

Yeah, well, what is your point?

 

[Black Rose]

You need to word it correctly because currently, it is not a valid argument.

I can draw conclusions from what I said intuitively, people just don't use logic to get to the truth the way you think they do.

 

[Old Things]

You need to word it correctly because currently, it is not a valid argument.

I can draw conclusions from what I said intuitively, people just don't use logic to get to the truth the way you think they do.

They do in philosophy. That's kinda the point.

 

[Black Rose]

You need to word it correctly because currently, it is not a valid argument.

I can draw conclusions from what I said intuitively, people just don't use logic to get to the truth the way you think they do.

They do in philosophy. That's kinda the point.

what do you think the motive was when @scorpiomover started to say @EndogenousRebel was wrong? I can only conclude that it was not about whether logic is something real or not. I think that it was just to make it known he was mad at him for not agreeing with him.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Logic is like math without numbers. It follows rules.

Kind of. What defines those rules is .......

 

[Black Rose]

Logic is like math without numbers. It follows rules.

Kind of. What defines those rules is .......

The source of all reality.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I would need to define all axioms. Meaning I would have to write like 10 rules.

Yeah, well, what is your point?

In the context of this thread?

-Freedom of speech is a worthy virtue.
-Speech has power
-Power of speech does extinguish with counter speech

-Freedom from consequences is a vice.
-People want to evade consequences
-People misuse power

-The existence of logic does not excuse all speech.

Must I go on?

 

[Old Things]

You need to word it correctly because currently, it is not a valid argument.

I can draw conclusions from what I said intuitively, people just don't use logic to get to the truth the way you think they do.

They do in philosophy. That's kinda the point.

what do you think the motive was when @scorpiomover started to say @EndogenousRebel was wrong? I can only conclude that it was not about whether logic is something real or not. I think that it was just to make it known he was mad at him for not agreeing with him.

Endrogenous was playing fast and loose with semantics. That's been the whole thing from the beginning. And that's why it's so insane what they are saying about the rules of logic.

 

[Old Things]

Logic is like math without numbers. It follows rules.

Kind of. What defines those rules is .......

Objectivity and a priori knowledge.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Objectivity and a priori knowledge.

There is a world out there and we can know something about it.
So that defines rules about logic?

 

[ZenRaiden]

The source of all reality.

There is a world out there and we can know something about it.
So that defines rules about logic?

 

[Black Rose]

The source of all reality.

There is a world out there and we can know something about it.
So that defines rules about logic?

God

 

[Old Things]

Objectivity and a priori knowledge.

There is a world out there and we can know something about it.
So that defines rules about logic?

No that does not define them at all. The rules of logic exist even if there was no universe.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Ok then we are just going with the logic is out-there definition.
We ought to do better than "rules" "principals of whatever" is logic.
I did not know its so challenging to define a word thrown around so often.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I used chat GPT I find its definition rather complicated.



Logic is the study of reasoning and argumentation. It is a branch of philosophy and mathematics that examines the principles of valid reasoning and inference. The primary goal of logic is to understand and systematize the rules of correct reasoning, allowing for the analysis and evaluation of arguments.
Key concepts in logic include:

1. Propositions: Statements that can be either true or false.
2. Arguments: Sets of propositions where one proposition, called the conclusion, is claimed to follow from one or more other propositions, called premises.
3. Validity: An argument is valid if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. In other words, if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true.
4. Soundness: An argument is sound if it is valid, and all of its premises are true. A sound argument is both logically valid and based on true premises.
5. Deduction and Induction: Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general principles or premises. Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations.
6. Logical operators: These are symbols or words that represent logical operations. Examples include "and" (conjunction), "or" (disjunction), "not" (negation), "if... then" (implication), and "if and only if" (biconditional).
7. Formal and Informal Logic: Formal logic deals with abstract systems of symbols and rules, while informal logic involves the analysis of everyday arguments and language.

There are different branches of logic, including:

• Propositional Logic: Deals with propositions and their logical relationships.
• Predicate Logic: Extends propositional logic by introducing variables and quantifiers to represent relationships between objects.
• Modal Logic: Examines the use of modalities like possibility, necessity, and belief.
• Philosophical Logic: Focuses on the logical aspects of philosophical problems and debates.
• Mathematical Logic: Applies logical principles to mathematics, including set theory and formal systems.

Logic plays a crucial role in various disciplines, including philosophy, mathematics, computer science, linguistics, and artificial intelligence. It provides a foundation for sound reasoning and the analysis of arguments.

 

[scorpiomover]

I have a relative who is going for their PhD in Philosophy. They have been a logic tutor on campus, for a couple years. I'm fairly sure I have recounted what I have learned about vacuous truths accurately.

That's very different. Your relative is an American like you, yes?
He is studying modern American philosophy, yes?

1) In Euclid's time, in Greece, Euclid was called a "philosopher", as arithmetic and geometry were considered part of philosophy. Philosophy was about getting accurate answers to real-life problems that would have real-world consequences if you got them wrong.

Greek sailors would use geometry to navigate the stars, in a time where if they got the answer wrong, they could be sent off course far enough that they wouldn't see land for months longer than they planned and stored food and water for. They'd run out of water, and be without water for months. No water for 2 weeks kills pretty much all humans. They couldn't even drink the sea water, and sea water is so salty that it has the equivalent effect of removing water from the body. So you get geometry wrong then => death for everyone on board the ship. Likewise, you get your logic in your geometrical calculations wrong then => death for everyone on board the ship.

2) In Newton's time, in Britain, science was called "natural philosophy", as science was considered part of philosophy. Philosophy was about figuring out things like if the Sun went around the Earth, or not, and how to make a mechanical device like a train that could transport people very fast without killing them. So you get your logic wrong then => death for everyone on board the train.

3) In the last 20 years, in the USA, modern American philosophers ask questions like the trolley problem, questions where there is no true answer, about entirely theoretical subjects that have nothing to do with anything, that are there to ask interesting questions, and make you think about things, the same goals as things like looking at the Mona Lisa and other paintings.

You get your logic wrong then => people still ask interesting questions and people still end up thinking about things => same result as if your logic was right. Actually, if you get your logic wrong then, people would be even MORE likely to ask interesting questions and think about things more, which is your aim. So then faulty logic is even better than if your logic was flawless.

You're talking about the same word (logic), used to refer to the same general area of study (understanding statements), but in 2 different subjects that have entirely different goals (one to get answers, and the other to seem cool and interesting).

Don't know what else to say. I was trying to write about how logic in arguments is pretty weak by itself. If you want to argue THAT, instead of an example I used to illustrate that, that would be cool.

If you are talking about "logic" as modern American philosophers use the term, that is flawed, and you are entirely correct.

Modern American philosophers believe that anything that Euclid and Newton talked about, anything that can get real answers about real problems, is not part of philosophy at all, and are part of other subjects that are devoted to getting real answers to real problems.

 

[scorpiomover]

Logic is like math without numbers. It follows rules.

You are referring to the topic that people like Euclid and Newton would have meant by "logic", things that get real answers to real problems, problems where if you get the wrong answer, people die.

@EndogenousRebel is talking about a topic Euclid and Newton were not talking about, a topic where you ask questions like the Trolley Problem, that have nothing to do with anything real, and everyone has a different answer.

Read post #131.

 

[scorpiomover]

So all logic is correct all the time or it is not logic?

In English, if something is true, it is common to say that something is "logically true", or "logical" for short. If something is false, it is common to say that something is "logically false", or "illogical" for short.

Logic is just the subject matter. It's like "things written on paper".

Are all "things written on paper" correct all the time or it is not "things written on paper"?

 

[scorpiomover]

what do you think the motive was when @scorpiomover started to say @EndogenousRebel was wrong? I can only conclude that it was not about whether logic is something real or not. I think that it was just to make it known he was mad at him for not agreeing with him.

Read post #131.

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK here is my definition of logic as I use.
Logic is subset of reasoning dealing with coherence and causation in reasoning.

Example> A guy works at a shop.
He wakes up naked.
He goes to work, but forgets his keys to car, and then stands in front of his house.
He is then take down by police.
So the guy now uses logic, and before he goes to work he dresses so he is not naked.
Then he goes back and gets his keys to the car before he gets to work so he can start the engine and go.
Now that he is in the car he can get to the shop on time.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

• Propositional Logic: Deals with propositions and their logical relationships.
• Predicate Logic: Extends propositional logic by introducing variables and quantifiers to represent relationships between objects.
• Modal Logic: Examines the use of modalities like possibility, necessity, and belief.
• Philosophical Logic: Focuses on the logical aspects of philosophical problems and debates.
• Mathematical Logic: Applies logical principles to mathematics, including set theory and formal systems.

We are basically talking about propositional logic.

This notion of "you're not REALLY talking about logic" is absurd. Certain people should just admit that they didn't really understand what logic was, and other certain people should admit that logic can lead you to absurd conclusions that humans can reason with so much better without the use of formal logic.

 

[Black Rose]

We are basically talking about propositional logic.

This notion of "you're not REALLY talking about logic" is absurd. Certain people should just admit that they didn't really understand what logic was, and other certain people should admit that logic can lead you to absurd conclusions that humans can reason with so much better without the use of formal logic.

David Hume was big on the is vs. ought debate.

descriptive vs. prescriptive

The first tells you how reality is but it cannot tell you what to do about it.

cats are small sometimes: therefore we should kill all cats? absurd conclusion.

Does Rationality Give Life Meaning? (Kierkegaard) - 8-Bit Philosophy​

 

[Old Things]

• Propositional Logic: Deals with propositions and their logical relationships.
• Predicate Logic: Extends propositional logic by introducing variables and quantifiers to represent relationships between objects.
• Modal Logic: Examines the use of modalities like possibility, necessity, and belief.
• Philosophical Logic: Focuses on the logical aspects of philosophical problems and debates.
• Mathematical Logic: Applies logical principles to mathematics, including set theory and formal systems.

We are basically talking about propositional logic.

This notion of "you're not REALLY talking about logic" is absurd. Certain people should just admit that they didn't really understand what logic was, and other certain people should admit that logic can lead you to absurd conclusions that humans can reason with so much better without the use of formal logic.

You take the logic out of logic by saying ridiculous things and then crown yourself king of logic.

 

[ZenRaiden]

We are basically talking about propositional logic.

This notion of "you're not REALLY talking about logic" is absurd. Certain people should just admit that they didn't really understand what logic was, and other certain people should admit that logic can lead you to absurd conclusions that humans can reason with so much better without the use of formal logic.

OK I am not arguing with you two, because I was lost about midway through when you two started talking about kenya. I can kind of follow what you two are talking, about, but I prefer not to.
My main point was this is "the logic" of the "day":as in that is what I use everyday.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You take the logic out of logic by saying ridiculous things and then crown yourself king of logic.

If 1+1=3, I am the pope.

Too bad, I don't make the rules. I am the Pope. You look so stupid right now.

 

[Old Things]

You take the logic out of logic by saying ridiculous things and then crown yourself king of logic.

If 1+1=3, I am the pope.

Too bad, I don't make the rules. I am the Pope. You look so stupid right now.

You are a very egotistical and arrogant person.

 

[Black Rose]

You take the logic out of logic by saying ridiculous things and then crown yourself king of logic.

If 1+1=3, I am the pope.

Too bad, I don't make the rules. I am the Pope. You look so stupid right now.

You are a very egotistical and arrogant person.

problems with logic exist, so this is an example

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There's clearly more at steak for you than for me I guess.

@Grayman said that all free speech should be allowed because bad speech can be countered with good speech.

@EndogenousRebel said that this does not reflect reality, that speech is mostly a theatrical process.

@scorpiomover said that this is because people don't stick to thinking with logic.

@EndogenousRebel said that even just using logic on it's own is prone to theatrics, and demonstrates it.

Incoming shit-storm where apparently I must be wrong because it would demoralize you. It's not even central to the argument we were having.

 

[Black Rose]

all free speech should be allowed

this does not reflect reality

using logic on it's own is prone to theatrics

I know several people who must disprove everyone else because of "logic".

They never consider anything I say because everything I say is wrong and dismantled with such and such "logic". One spends too much time on Twitter and is a logic troll.

I stopped talking to most of them because most do not care about anything I say. It is all dismissed and dismantled.

Yet when it comes to free speech, people should be allowed to talk about subjects in private and in public. The issue of consequences is a big one because the right to protect your free speech has everything to do with power. People want to stop me from associating with others which is not cool, yet also I would not want others to associate with me but they want to force their "speech" upon me.

Association, speech, and property are essential rights. I won't try and do anything about taking those away from anyone unless they start attacking me. Prisons exist for reasons. I call the cops when I need to. In society, people should follow rules most time and also one rule is that you should not mess with other people or other groups or they start targeting you.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Man I have not seen so much cross fire since playing half life in the 2000s.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How about we accept that logic is nice, but it does not always work for every problem in life. I know in schools we were told this is so, but its not so.
Many things in life just don't have logical solutions that work.
That is not an attack on anyone, that is just my way of saying there are problems outthere we won't logic even if we had the brains of Nikolai Tesla.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

but it does not always work for every problem in life

please provide an example of a problem that can't be solved with logic

 

[Black Rose]

but it does not always work for every problem in life

please provide an example of a problem that can't be solved with logic

Star Trek (8/9) Movie CLIP - Spock Meets Spock (2009) HD​

 

[ZenRaiden]

please provide an example of a problem that can't be solved with logic

any problem can have component of logic, but if the only component is logic it won't work for this we need empathy to relate to people.
Women frustrate men because the want shit that don't require logic, children don't follow logic, so women don't want logical guys, because children don't get logic, but they do get emotions, then you have situations in social situation where logic is just not that important over understanding and intuition,
Any problem where experience is more than logic will require x experience, but logic won't suffice, because no amount of logic will replace experience.
Art can be logical, but ultimately the best artist follow rules of art that often don't follow logic, but aesthetic feels and stuff, and maybe somewhere there there is some hidden logic,but our brains don't know that.
A melody cannot be played by logic.
A good example are savant brains.
They have IQs of 60 or less, but do things even people with IQs 150 + cannot, where is the logic in that right?
We know woefully little about intellect of humans.
I can throw a stone and hit a bird, no logic is required.
I can run and no logic will help.
I can get into a fight and win, but logic is very rarely useful.
I can see every situation as opportunity to logic, but at the end some things require things like intuitions, empathy, and whole host of behaviors that if we approach this with logic we would be losing time.

To me logic is like having a calculator. Its one tool of many to be used.
We tend to think in theory and abstraction, but we ignore all the times we could solve problems without logic, mainly because we think its all about logic, because that is what we are told, so its hammer and everything becomes a nail.
Even riding cars, or flying planes is less about IQ and logic and more about coordinating skills.
So there is plenty jobs, and problems where logic alone is merely icing on the cake.
And who knows what if God does not use logic so much either?
Maybe its nice to have bones to fight gravity as its necessary, and a mind capable to reason well with logic, but at the end of the day, it just takes more than logic.
Now I am not trying to logic is not important. Au coutraire mon ami, we should not forget it, but let it not blind us that often times life throws curved balls at us where logic pales.

 

[EndogenousRebel]