Dear Worms. SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!

[Black Rose]

In simple terms: what the hell is everyone fighting about?

All that was said was that logic might have problems because sometimes people have poor reasoning skills and then they start getting accused of being evil and shit.

The majority of you don't act like adults at all.

Walls and walls of text because you think you are justified in fighting people you labeled "evil" in your heads.

Is it so hard to believe that people who believe in lizard people give logic a bad name? "Look at me I am so logical because I believe in lizard people and you don't"

Why would you? Trust the science.

 

[Black Rose]

This is the simple fact: you labeled someone evil, there is no other reason you are fighting with them.

 

[Black Rose]

If no problems with logic exist, that is all you need to say.

walls and walls of text here show signs of vendetta and self-insecurities.

 

[scorpiomover]

In simple terms: what the hell is everyone fighting about?

All that was said was that logic might have problems because sometimes people have poor reasoning skills and then they start getting accused of being evil and shit.

The majority of you don't act like adults at all.

Walls and walls of text because you think you are justified in fighting people you labeled "evil" in your heads.

Is it so hard to believe that people who believe in lizard people give logic a bad name? "Look at me I am so logical because I believe in lizard people and you don't"

Why would you? Trust the science.

Science might have problems because sometimes people have poor reasoning skills.

Is it so hard to believe that people who believe in lizard people give science a bad name? "Look at me I am so scientific because I believe in lizard people and you don't".

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If no problems with logic exist, that is all you need to say.

just because someone claims their position is "logical" does not make it so

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Superman could stop a runaway trolley in its tracks, thus stopping it from running over anyone on either track. So Superman could save everyone in the Trolley Problem.

how many unfortunate events to you believe superman could prevent each day ?

but more to the point

is it each individual's "moral responsibility" to prevent as many unfortunate events as they possibly can ?

OR

is it perhaps each individual's "moral responsibility" to NOT CAUSE unfortunate events ?

 

[Black Rose]

Lizard people = bad science and bad logic

why fight about it?

 

[Black Rose]

people can act like they reason correctly but often some don't.

 

[scorpiomover]

Lizard people = bad science and bad logic

why fight about it?

Why do YOU keep fighting about it?

What is so hard about accepting that you're one of the people who believe in lizard people? What is so hard about accepting that you're the people with bad science and bad logic? If it's not such a big deal, then why not blame yourself?

 

[Black Rose]

Lizard people = bad science and bad logic

why fight about it?

Why do YOU keep fighting about it?

What is so hard about accepting that you're one of the people who believe in lizard people? What is so hard about accepting that you're the people with bad science and bad logic? If it's not such a big deal, then why not blame yourself?

Do you think I believe in lizard people?

That is why I am fighting, people keep accusing me of shit because they are hateful people.

 

[Black Rose]

poor reasoning is poor reasoning

so if a person is motivated or intentional they can use words to try and hurt people by poor reasoning to the degree of that person's intelligence.

I do not see any reason why this conflict got so big other than that someone here was too hung up on semantics and how it would lead to evil things if @EndogenousRebel was not put in his place.

I do not think EndogenousRebel meant anything bad so the cause was someone's insecurities about semantics of what good or bad reasoning is about.

 

[scorpiomover]

If no problems with logic exist, that is all you need to say.

What do you mean "no problems with logic exist"? Is having to make effort to understand something properly a "problem"? Is not treating something like it's a magic wand that will magically give you all the answers you want without having to put any effort in, a "problem"?

walls and walls of text here show signs of vendetta and self-insecurities.

Where did you get that idea? If someone beats you up in revenge for you ignoring them, but doesn't write walls and walls of text, NOT a vendetta?

IIRC, you've said in the past, that you struggle to think out things clearly, which logic clearly requires. Seems to me that you want to say that logic is "flawed", because you've got a vendetta against logic, just because you aren't good at it.

Taking a vendetta against a subject, just because you're not good at it, is a clear sign of self-insecurities.

 

[Black Rose]

Seems to me that you want to say that logic is "flawed", because you've got a vendetta against logic, just because you aren't good at it.

Taking a vendetta against a subject, just because you're not good at it, is a clear sign of self-insecurities.

That is your projection against me because of your hateful insecurities.

calm down dude, talk this out, what kind of childhood trauma caused you to be this way?

 

[Black Rose]

projection is when people find the one thing they hate most about themselves and either put it on others or they become obsessed with it.

logic is not what I have problems with, I have problems with insensitive people and I feel sad because I am stupid and cannot program computers to make human-level intelligence.

no matter what I did, I was never good with technology or making friends.

 

[Black Rose]

church made me feel bad all the time also

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I'm just gonna turn off notifications from this thread. Nothing useful precipitating from it. Just two people hung up on what logic is.

My light on my night stand is a set of relationships?

you just presented three objects

and described the relationships between them

Yes, but the question was if (a description of) a set of relationships is interchangeable with logic. You said it it's interchangeable with anything. See how I'm describing a set of relationships regarding your argument. It's your logic.

You have already brought up this argument in a different thread. You're not turning the tables on anyone here, you have actively expressed your fantasy of harming "bullies" before, I know for a fact you get emotional in these conversations. That is here nor there, when I am the target of it, I will take issue with it.

You've already written before that you're going to keep repeating yourself until others give in. However, in maths, you keep getting told off for accepting other's claims, until it stops being part of your psyche. So you can keep saying this over and over. But it won't change how I think.

It might make me give up on telling you. But that won't change my viewpoint. It will just mean I think that there's no point in correcting you, and at that point, if you are about to do something monumentally self-destructive, I will also probably lack the motivation to tell you not to do that as well.

Your funeral.

Because you literally said you wouldn't cooperate in our conversation. Calling my claims "silly" and then hiding what you wrote in spoiler tags. My reponse that I was just going to restate what I wrote was in response to that.

If you categorically dismiss my arguments, I don't see any reason why I must follow along with your head canon.

No such thing as "argumentation". You've just made that up, because without logic, you don't have any basis for making an argument.

That characterization of argumentation is interesting. I would agree with it.

Not with the idea that argumentation is something "(that I) just made -up".

I was not suggesting that the concept was invented by yourself, merely the word you use to label the concept, so you don't have to spend 50 words every time you want to talk about making rational arguments about an issue.

All of the symbols in logic are of exactly the same nature: taking existing concepts, and using symbols to describe them, so we can shorten mathematical proofs and theorems.

An example is "=", which is pronounced "equals" in English, and is shorthand for what humans mean by "equals". Another example is "+" which is pronounced "plus", which is shorthand for the general properties of the operator used in addition.

I actually had one maths course which was given entirely in words. So maths isn't about symbolic logic. It's just much more concise when written in symbols.

So you see how argumentation can be logical yes?

This idea of "rigorous" anything is redundant in this context. It's like, is writing in C# vs C++. Syntax and semantics are less precise in one. Does the computer understand the same message. No, but functionally the same thing happens.

It is shorthand for a much more expanded argument. If either interlocutor needs elaboration, then we give it to them.

Logic is a (description of a) set of relationships. You can interchange logic with set of relationships, yes or no?

No.

lol

If we take your definition of "argumentation" for example, then logic is a particular subset of argumentation that is "rigorous argumentation". To be rigorous, means that you are extremely thorough and careful.

I never defined argumentation.

I wrote:

YOU THREE conflated what logic was with argumentation.

Because it seems like you are applying human reasoning to logic.

This is unbelivable now. You either

For example:

You can build a bridge in 3 days.

Or, you can take your time to check that each and every component of the bridge is strong enough and reliable enough to safely and consistently support the load it is expected to hold, and then to check that all the components fit the components they connect to, so that the load is transferred properly, until you can be certain that the bridge will definitely support the load that it is designed to support, which might take 3 months.

Now, if you build the bridge quickly but not rigorously, then it will probably hold in a light breeze. But if it's supposed to withstand a hurricane, some of the support beams may not be quite as strong as they're supposed to be, because steel strength is actually calculated on an average basis, and not per component, and so they might buckle. Then in a real hurricane, sometimes the bridge will stand. In another hurricane, some of the support beams may buckle and the whole bridge collapses, killing the people who are still trying to get off the bridge.

But if you take the rigorous approach, then the bridge will definitely hold in any hurricane, because that's how it was designed, and the bridge-builders checked every component, and even the connections between the components. So then you have nothing to worry about.

Logic is about taking that same rigorous approach to argumentation. IRL, some arguments in argumentation turn out to be true. Others appear solid, but turn out to be false. In logic, if you cannot be certain that your argument is completely & rigorously true, because you have not checked it rigorously, you are supposed to reject the argument.

The argument may be true anyway. But it's not RIGOROUSLY true. So there's a chance it may be wrong. So in logic, you are supposed to throw it out.

But if you take the rigorous approach, it can take years to prove even a single theorem. So a long time ago, logicians developed symbols to express certain concepts in logic, and took a long time to prove the rules between them in a rigorous manner. So if you've been taught many of those rules, you can vastly speed up the process of proving something rigorously, from a year to maybe a few months, maybe even a few weeks.

But you are still expected to understand those rules, and to prove them, and to be able to prove your argument in a rigorous fashion without those rules anyway.

Now, if you take the rigorous approach, you will find that there's a lot you cannot prove rigorously. If you want to prove heliocentrism, you have to assume that there is such a thing as the Sun, even though no-one has ever been to the Sun, or even touched the Sun, and so it might be a mass hallucination.

So in logic, you would say something like "assuming that there is a Sun and an Earth, then the Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit", because if you just assume there is a sun without stating your assumptions, then you're not really being that rigorous.

So in THAT sense, you can only really talk rigorously about arguments when you are discussing relationships between things.

But it's not about relationships per se. It's really about making sure that your arguments have been verified RIGOROUSLY.

The relationship between argumentation and logic is thus a similar relationship between casual observation and scientific experimentation. The latter is a LOT more precise and careful than the former.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

I said this before, but you keep stating the obvious.

P1. Unicorns do not exist.
C. All unicorns are tigers.
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

Ux = x is a unicorn, Tx = x is a tiger

You cannot argue about fictitious things, because once you enter into fiction you can pretty much assert anything. This is something logic cannot account for.

I am not saying that this is the downfall of logic as you seem to believe I am. I am just pointing out how logic on it's own merits does nothing to assert a truth. Logic is just a tool.

If I invoke a hypothetical like the trolley problem to illustrate how impossible it is to make a perfect moral judgment at a given moment, and you say that the invoking the trolley problem is a fallacy, I would call you thick.

The point isn't the trolley problem should be taken as something we actually worry about, it is just a device to exemplify something.

Sure. But what exactly are you exemplifying? That we should worry about the Trolley Problem, because you find yourself in such a situation 10 times a day? You said we should NOT worry about it. But if it happens often, then we'd have to deal with it, and so would have to be concerned with it, right?

So presumably, your reasons for saying we shouldn't have to worry about it, is because it hardly ever happens, right?

But if it hardly ever happens, then who cares about it or what it exemplifies? It almost never happens anyway.

Rather, the whole point of an example, is to indicate something about all the other situations that are like it, that do occur often, and so thus indicate that what is true about the example, is also true about all the other problems that are like it.

Since the Trolley Problem is about a moral issue, and it highlights the impossibility of picking an answer, as an example, it serves to indicate all moral questions other than the Trolley Problem are equally problematic, and thus all questions of morality equally havean impossibility of picking an answer.

An example: some terrorists hijack an airplane full of hundreds of passengers and now are aiming it at a skyscraper that has thousands of people. Do you blow up the plane or not? If you blow up the plane, you've deliberately killed hundreds of people. If you don't blow up the plane, you've deliberately allowed the terrorists to kill thousands of people.

If the decision is such that it is impossible to choose an answer, then your hands are tied, and you have to sit there in horror as you watch the aircraft plough into the skyscraper and watch as thousands die.

Do you bomb the country that sent those terrorists and get rid of the terrorist group that sent them? If you do, you'll probably end up bombing and killing a lot more than the terrorists. Again, you may kill 10 to 100 times as many innocent people as the murderers. Same problem. If the choice is impossible, you cannot act.

But these are problems LIKE the Trolley Problem. The Trolley Problem does not serve as an example there.

Rather it serves as an example when it comes to the rape and murder of a child. Is it moral to ban the rape and murder of children? You've just given an example to exemplify that it's impossible to make definitive choices when it comes to morality. So then you can't make it illegal to rape and murder children.

Then every moral choice becomes allowed. Paedophiles and murderers can do as they want in your country, because you won't lift a finger to stop them.

So the Trolley Problem really serves as an example of why you should not learn anything about morality from the Trolley Problem.

No.

I am exemplifying something with my "fallacious" example.

Yes, you are.

What you are exemplifying, is that anyone with even the level of intelligence of a 10-year-old can make up an argument why 1 = 0, why the Sun goes around the Earth, why medicine is the work of the devil, why the only reasonable and moral form of government is a violent dictatorship, and anything else they feel like.

They can do that with any argument without going near logic, because argumentation without logic is just any argument which you are not careful about, and that allows for far more arguments than would be allowed under logic.

So it's not logic per se that is flawed, but argumentation as a whole that is flawed, and flawed so horribly, that almost anything can be justified using argumentation, however stupid those arguments are, and however sick and twisted those arguments are.

Hitler's arguments would be justified under argumentation.

At least with logic, you have a chance of proving Hitler wrong, because logic has to be rigorous, i.e. logical arguments have to be carefully examined, and if there is even the slightest flaw, they have to be thrown out.

I'm saying the opposite. Anything can be justified with logic. Argumentation is a much more loftier ideal, that is made from logic.

Well if it's any consolation, I haven't gotten much from this at all.

You will. I'm 54 years old. I've seen enough in my time to show me the value of logic. By the time you're my age, you'll have seen a lot worse, and realise the dangers of following argumentation that doesn't conform to logic.

You don't need to believe me either. You'll see that for yourself in good time.

I'm happy that the depths of something that I have conversed with several other intellectual minds on several occasions, was able to shake something loose in your head.

It has. It's explained to me why the world is in the sorry state it is in, and why so many horrible things seem to happen, that people keep being surprised at, and don't seem to have any good ways to solve.

They, like you, believe that there is little value in logic. So they resort to argumentation to justify their views, when argumentation has no rigour, no care and concern to make sure that their arguments are correct.

So they come up with all sorts of new ideas to solve the world's problems, which all sound good. But then a few years later, even worse problems come up, which all can be explained by the use of logic, which demonstrates clearly that their "solutions" caused the worse problems to happen. So they've actually made things much WORSE by their "solutions".

They can't even solve these new problems that they created. Why? Because these problems can't be solved by their existing approaches. So if they CAN be solved, it would have to be by solutions that they'd normally never consider. But to get a solution like that to work, you'd have to check it rigorously, which requires logic, which they've abandoned. So the problems go on and on, or get worse and worse.

Nothing gets better. Everything gets worse.

Then you wonder why Boomers had it soooo much better.

I don't. I can see why. Boomers believed in the merits of logic, and your generation don't. So Boomers did some things that had a chance of working, but your generation don't do anything that stands any chance of working, not without making things much, much worse.

So nothing gets better. Everything gets worse, and thus previous generations like the Boomers had it much better than later generations like Millennials and Gen Z.

I would prefer to be skeptical about my tools and what they can do, then to fantasize that they alone can solve my problems.

 

[scorpiomover]

Yes, but the question was if (a description of) a set of relationships is interchangeable with logic. You said it it's interchangeable with anything. See how I'm describing a set of relationships regarding your argument. It's your logic.

Yes. But I never said that logic was a set of definitions.

Logic is a set of rules that restrict combinations of statements about relationships between different entities.

Because you literally said you wouldn't cooperate in our conversation. Calling my claims "silly" and then hiding what you wrote in spoiler tags. My reponse that I was just going to restate what I wrote was in response to that.

You have misinterpreted consideration of other people's feelings as avoidance.

I broke my post into spoiler tags, so I would not be writing walls of text, as I've been accused of that before, and told that it results in TL;DR. So then you and others could read as much or as little as you wanted.

If I had wanted to hide what I wrote, I could have simply left all of that out.

So you see how argumentation can be logical yes?

That's going to depend on your definition of "argumentation".

This idea of "rigorous" anything is redundant in this context. It's like, is writing in C# vs C++. Syntax and semantics are less precise in one. Does the computer understand the same message. No, but functionally the same thing happens.

I've coded for years in both, on projects with real-world outcomes for actual people, where I got significant feedback on the real-world results.

I worked in C# for several years, and then worked with C++. There was a significant learning curve, not in terms of the syntax or the libraries, but in terms of understanding the things you have to pay attention to, which are completely different.

If you're not paying attention to the right things in each, the computer keeps crashing. Even if you're trying to apply both sets of rules, you'll also get a system crash.

If I had to compare them to something, it would be like comparing dating a left-wing lawyer (C#) to dating a right-wing fitness freak (C++).

E.G. if you invite them both to a party, the C# woman will turn up in a little black cocktail dress expecting to be taken to a swanky hotel/mansion. The C++ woman will turn up in a mini-skirt expecting to go to a rave.

You just cannot treat them the same way, not unless you want your systems to fail repeatedly.

It is shorthand for a much more expanded argument. If either interlocutor needs elaboration, then we give it to them.

That doesn't work for logic. People don't always ask all the questions they need answers to when you are there, or they forget some of the answers. Then they look back at the logic and can't make head or tail of it. So in logic, you have to write your entire working out, or you'll just end up inventing things that have no basis, and that's something that is not allowed in logic (one of the rules).

I never defined argumentation.

Then define it.

Because it seems like you are applying human reasoning to logic.

People get confused between the 2. Logic is a particular type of human reasoning, one in which we take a particular approach.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Principia Mathematica is a very intense work. It's not for lightweights. It takes over 200 pages for Russell and Whitehead to prove that "1 + 1 = 2", because they're not assuming all the basic rules of arithmetic that we usually treat as axioms (premises), and trying to prove them from scratch.

It's quite important, because Euclid had 5 axioms of geometry, rules that we take for granted in human life. Mathematicians were able to prove 4 of them. But the 5th remained unproved. Eventually, Einstein showed that our universe is inconsistent with the 5th axiom, which means our universe is not Euclidean, which means all of Euclidean geometry is assuming a universe that we do not live in.

Turns out you need to know that the universe is non-Euclidean in order to make things like reliable GPS and reliable global mobile phone communications.

If we'd stuck to avoiding using logic, everyone would have assumed Euclid's axioms were all true, would have rejected Einstein's theories, and right now, you wouldn't have a working SatNav or a working mobile phone.

I said this before, but you keep stating the obvious.

P1. Unicorns do not exist.
C. All unicorns are tigers.
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

Ux = x is a unicorn, Tx = x is a tiger

P1: Unicorns don't exist.
P2: No reasoning exists to suggest that any unicorns are or are not tigers.
C: There is insufficient evidence and logic to conclude that all unicorns are tigers, or even that any unicorns are tigers, or even that no unicorns are tigers.

1) Suppose that unicorns don't exist, and that not all unicorns are tigers.
2) You can't prove that not all unicorns are tigers, when you have no reason to think that unicorns would be tigers or not be tigers, unless you can prove that at least one unicorn exists that is not a tiger.
3) By (1), since you assumed that unicorns do not exist, you have no proof that at least one unicorn exists that is not a tiger.
4) By (3), if unicorns don't exist, you have no proof that "not all unicorns are tigers" is true or false. "not all unicorns are tigers" remains indeterminate.
5) Therefore, by (4), if unicorns don't exist, you have not proved your argument that "all unicorns are tigers" is true, and thus have not proved that all unicorns are tigers.

You jumped to this:
If unicorns don't exist, and you cannot prove that not all unicorns are tigers, then all unicorns must be tigers (WRONG).

Logic is just a tool.

Would you use a hammer to cure cancer? Does that mean hammers are flawed? Or does that mean that if someone uses a hammer in a situation in which it would not work properly, that such a person does not understand the tool they are using?

I'm saying the opposite. Anything can be justified with logic.

I understand you believe that. You made a flawed argument. See above.

Argumentation is a much more loftier ideal, that is made from logic.

You'll have to define "argumentation" then, before I can make any claims about it.

I would prefer to be skeptical about my tools and what they can do, then to fantasize that they alone can solve my problems.

Now you're starting to sound like a logician.

 

[Old Things]

Would you use a hammer to cure cancer? Does that mean hammers are flawed? Or does that mean that if someone uses a hammer in a situation in which it would not work properly, that such a person does not understand the tool they are using?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You jumped to this:
If unicorns don't exist, and you cannot prove that not all unicorns are tigers, then all unicorns must be tigers (WRONG).

a rigorous definition of "unicorn" would also solve this