Importance of logic

[Architect]

How important is logical correctness to you? How good are you at logic? The INTP type is billed as the most logical type but for myself I find that logic is a little less important than the type descriptions would lead me to believe.

For example, when I took the GRE I scored poorly on the logic portion. This was unfortunate because supposedly the logic portion was important to get into graduate school. However I did get into a good school so I suppose it didn't matter. Since then I spent my life working in computer science and I find logic much more interesting than I did back then. Curiously, I found logic to be too dry, boring and low-level thinking.

On the other hand, I do work hard to precisely and correctly communicate. Finding the exact, correct word to express what I'm trying to say is something that I work at.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Logic is the very foundation of real knowledge. It's essentially the basic understanding that contradictions do not really exist.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Point of departure.

 

[typus]

Pretending that I care about logic and truth while in actuality just coming up with seemingly reasonable rationalizations based on superficially plausible premises in an attempt to derive contrived, emotionally motivated conclusions is one of my favorite pastimes!

 

[SpaceYeti]

Pretending that I care about logic and truth while in actuality just coming up with seemingly reasonable rationalizations based on reverse-engineered superficially plausible premises in an attempt to derive contrived, emotionally motivated conclusions is one of my favorite pastimes!

So you're religious?

 

[Zensunni]

LOL.

 

[Zensunni]

It is very important to me that things make sense. I find the world too riddling sometimes and I have come to the conclusion that this is so because most people are irrational and motivated by desires.

In a world this confusing, I find solace in logic and rationality. In them I see that I do not have to worry about what I want changing the answers to what is right or wrong. Being a non-religious person, I find this to be my immovable rock around which the rest of universe may move without making me feel adrift.

 

[BigApplePi]

How important is logical correctness to you? How good are you at logic? The INTP type is billed as the most logical type but for myself I find that logic is a little less important than the type descriptions would lead me to believe.

For example, when I took the GRE I scored poorly on the logic portion. This was unfortunate because supposedly the logic portion was important to get into graduate school. However I did get into a good school so I suppose it didn't matter. Since then I spent my life working in computer science and I find logic much more interesting than I did back then. Curiously, I found logic to be too dry, boring and low-level thinking.

On the other hand, I do work hard to precisely and correctly communicate. Finding the exact, correct word to express what I'm trying to say is something that I work at.

What kind of logic? Logic where you go along a path and make sure you don't stray? I think that is called deductive logic. You just make sure you don't deviate from the rules. But there is another kind of logic.

I call it statistical logic. (Maybe that's the concept introduced recently by Da Blob as fuzzy logic.) Here you choose among possibilities. There may be a few of them. They can tear you this way and that. You have to choose. How do you do it? The linear logic of one variable won't work because there are many variables. Even two variables can throw you for a loop if they mean laying out a 2x2 matrix of possibilities. The more variables the more data you have to collect. The more data the more you are faced with rating and evaluating it.

What do people often do? They give up on formal logic. It's too imprecise of all things! They go with feelings. Feelings are the gestalt that give the final answer if they jell. They don't have to jell. They can present you with a terrible conflict ... which way to go? So then you try and fall back on linear logic ... if the choice falls along some line you can define.

Back to ordinary linear logic. This being the simplest kind, it's important one not goof up. The most common error (IMO) is where one asks if A-->B and the truth is B-->A. That error is extremely common among laymen because A and B are so closely associated.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Pretending that I care about logic and truth while in actuality just coming up with seemingly reasonable rationalizations based on superficially plausible premises in an attempt to derive contrived, emotionally motivated conclusions is one of my favorite pastimes!

+ 1

God, people piss me off sometimes.

 

[BigApplePi]

God, people piss me off sometimes.

I see you're speakng directly to God. Let us know if he replies if it's a private email.

Can you tell us if you include yourself among those you are pissed off at?

 

[BigApplePi]

It is very important to me that things make sense. I find the world too riddling sometimes and I have come to the conclusion that this is so because most people are irrational and motivated by desires.

In a world this confusing, I find solace in logic and rationality. In them I see that I do not have to worry about what I want changing the answers to what is right or wrong. Being a non-religious person, I find this to be my immovable rock around which the rest of universe may move without making me feel adrift.

If an irresistible force kicks that rock, and you discover that all those who use logic and rationality are motivated underneath by desire, would you get religion after all?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I see you're speakng directly to God. Let us know if he replies if it's a private email.

Can you tell us if you include yourself among those you are pissed off at?

I hope he will one day reply. If he doesn't, it's because I am best not knowing. Have faith, my friend.

Yes, I get pissed at myself sometimes.

 

[Zensunni]

If an irresistible force kicks that rock, and you discover that all those who use logic and rationality are motivated underneath by desire, would you get religion after all?

Maybe I do not explain myself well.

I understand I have motivations and desires but I think of things in abstract terms, walk through the rationality or logic, come to an answer and then ask myself what I want. If what I want contradicts what is right, I do not let myself have what I want.

As Bob Dylan said, you've got to serve somebody. I am not the most important thing in my world.

 

[Da Blob]

I understand logic - as well as the Subjective need that the Objective paradigm of a system of logic seems to fulfill. However, it is easy to spot those who really do not understand logic, because they never mention the limits of logic. I assume it is because they are ignorant of those limits and perhaps even hope that those limits do not exist, living is a state of Denial.

In a world seemingly ruled by Chaos, it is important to feel secure. Some use logic the same way, for the same purpose, that others use Teddy bears or God...

BTW - I do agree with BAPi, there is a 'logic' to numbers, that is distinct from the logic of words. The philosophy that underlies Multi-Variate Statistical Analysis is quite interesting especially when considering Exploratory Data Analysis...

 

[BigApplePi]

Maybe I do not explain myself well.

I have to completely share that sentiment with you. If I had something in mind and did not get it across and you are receptive, I failed in some way. I've done that before and will make that error again.

I understand I have motivations and desires but I think of things in abstract terms, walk through the rationality or logic, come to an answer and then ask myself what I want. If what I want contradicts what is right, I do not let myself have what I want.

As Bob Dylan said, you've got to serve somebody. I am not the most important thing in my world.

I understand you think logically and come to good choices afterward. What I wanted to say is that there are motives for thinking logically in the first place besides the outcome. When I attempt to think logically, something drives me. I want to. I know damn well that feeling types would rather I speak the language of feeling right off the bat, but I most often fail to do that because ... well ...

Logic does not always serve me well. I make mistakes that can't be rectified easily. Then I kick myself and feel the fool. Ever feel that way?

 

[Zensunni]

I understand logic - as well as the Subjective need that the Objective paradigm of a system of logic seems to fulfill. However, it is easy to spot those who really do not understand logic, because they never mention the limits of logic. I assume it is because they are ignorant of those limits and perhaps even hope that those limits do not exist, living is a state of Denial.

In a world seemingly ruled by Chaos, it is important to feel secure. Some use logic the same way, for the same purpose, that others use Teddy bears or God...

BTW - I do agree with BAPi, there is a 'logic' to numbers, that is distinct from the logic of words. The philosophy that underlies Multi-Variate Statistical Analysis is quite interesting especially when considering Exploratory Data Analysis...

Logic is something that governs the internals of a larger thing. You need to situate it. There is no such thing as logic without a subject within which it works.

 

[Da Blob]

Logic is something that governs the internals of a larger thing. You need to situate it. There is no such thing as logic without a subject within which it works.

Not to seem to disagree, but there is little about Dynamic Systems that is constrained to logic, per se...

 

[Zensunni]

True enough but we were talking about the importance of logic not its universality.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Logic is important, but so is other stuff.

 

[a detached retina]

"I understand logic - as well as the Subjective need that the Objective paradigm of a system of logic seems to fulfill. However, it is easy to spot those who really do not understand logic, because they never mention the limits of logic. I assume it is because they are ignorant of those limits and perhaps even hope that those limits do not exist, living is a state of Denial.

In a world seemingly ruled by Chaos, it is important to feel secure. Some use logic the same way, for the same purpose, that others use Teddy bears or God...

BTW - I do agree with BAPi, there is a 'logic' to numbers, that is distinct from the logic of words. The philosophy that underlies Multi-Variate Statistical Analysis is quite interesting especially when considering Exploratory Data Analysis..."

I don't think logic has it's limits, I think people have limits. If you were trying to decide whether or not to date someone who asked you out, you could theoretically consider every conceivable line of logic (e.g. If I say yes and she reacts by saying elephants are red then I jump sideways to the left then would I be happier or less happy than I am now? etc) but it would take infinitely long. So we just choose based on emotion

 

[Words]

I think Logic only has limits if it is viewed incompletely. If it is only viewed through the scope of what it is, and not through what it is not. Everything is a system. Perception is a system. Inconsistency is a consistency. Where there is no logic, there is logic, hence, the initial proposition is invalid. Logic is the better perspective. Why am I saying this? I don't know. What's the question? Oh.

I don't know. There is a reaction when there is perceived illogical something, but reactions can have many explanations. I think I'll write something about Logic as a perspective, though I haven't really figured out the content.

 

[BigApplePi]

I think Logic only has limits if it is viewed incompletely. If it is only viewed through the scope of what it is, and not through what it is not. Everything is a system. Perception is a system. Inconsistency is a consistency. Where there is no logic, there is logic, hence, the initial proposition is invalid. Logic is the better perspective. Why am I saying this? I don't know. What's the question? Oh.

I don't know. There is a reaction when there is perceived illogical something, but reactions can have many explanations. I think I'll write something about Logic as a perspective, though I haven't really figured out the content.

I think Words has it right, especially about the system. One could say logic is the rules of the game, but it's not the game itself. When you play the game, if you don't follow the rules, you forfeit the game ... or at least are booted until you are back on track and allowed back in. When you play the game and have learned the rules so well that you are no longer conscious of them, then you experience the fun of progress or sightseeing along the way or the disappointment of falling behind.

 

[Puffy]

Logic is important, but so is other stuff.

I am with Vrecknidj.

 

[Jah]

fons et origo.

 

[digital angel]

I think Words has it right, especially about the system. One could say logic is the rules of the game, but it's not the game itself. When you play the game, if you don't follow the rules, you forfeit the game ... or at least are booted until you are back on track and allowed back in. When you play the game and have learned the rules so well that you are no longer conscious of them, then you experience the fun of progress or sightseeing along the way or the disappointment of falling behind.

Ditto; Understanding the game is important.

 

[Hadoblado]

I hold logic above pretty much all else. I understand it has limitations (or our understanding of logic does), but there is no better way to make decisions.

You have 1,000,000 pieces of paper, each a slightly different shade from blue to green. If you pull them out one at a time and show them to Mike starting from the most green and working to the most blue, Mike cannot tell the difference between each consecutive colour. When you get to paper #1,000,000 Mike will perceive it as green.

True or false?

 

[BigApplePi]

I hold logic above pretty much all else. I understand it has limitations (or our understanding of logic does), but there is no better way to make decisions.

You have 1,000,000 pieces of paper, each a slightly different shade from blue to green. If you pull them out one at a time and show them to Mike starting from the most green and working to the most blue, Mike cannot tell the difference between each consecutive colour. When you get to paper #1,000,000 Mike will perceive it as green.

True or false?

False. Mike isn't only looking at paper. He has a pre-conceived idea of blue and green and at some point will jump to blue. Right? On the other hand he may see black as he will fall asleep after the 342nd piece of paper, lol.

 

[Zionoxis]

Yes, I find logic to be extremely important to me. If I cannot make sense of an issue, it will bother me for the remainder of the day or longer depending on the situation. Something I find in INTP's is that we are NOT the most logical because we are INTP, but because of how we think. We tend to over think problems and thus, we often turn to other methods of thought that seem more precise than relying on sole emotion.

We are generally better at logic because we find logic more interesting. People will generally be better at what they enjoy doing. By the way, I like the B -> A post. Very interesting.

Just for the record, I am not all that exceptional at logic myself. I would like to consider myself more logical than many.

 

[Iuanes]

I've always wondered about this. I always see descriptions of INTP's as cold logicians. I think may have to do with the value for 'truth' we seem to have. Okay, if we want the truth of something we try to be perfectly logical about it or I guess wait for the intuitive insight and check it with logic. Use the best tools we have, or what we think are the best tools.

Practice and value might make you good at it, but I don't thinks its necessarily an inherent intelligence.


Everything is based on logic until you it follow to a certain point and then you realize everything is based in _____

One can be logical and realize the 'right' answer to a problem would be some impulsive emotional response.

 

[BigApplePi]

I've always wondered about this. I always see descriptions of INTP's as cold logicians. I think may have to do with the value for 'truth' we seem to have. Okay, if we want the truth of something we try to be perfectly logical about it or I guess wait for the intuitive insight and check it with logic. Use the best tools we have, or what we think are the best tools.

Practice and value might make you good at it, but I don't thinks its necessarily an inherent intelligence.


Everything is based on logic until you it follow to a certain point and then you realize everything is based in _____

One can be logical and realize the 'right' answer to a problem would be some impulsive emotional response.

Pure logic is pretty cold and INTPs are fond of of pure logic. Did I say "fond"? One has to look to see that in the person pushing pure logic.

"Everything is based on logic"?
I wouldn't put it that way. Everything is based on lots of stuff. Logic or cause and effect will play a part.

 

[Iuanes]

Yeah, I agree. It's just a matter of perspectives I think. We could just be playing around, or passionately involving ourselves with something, but from the outside to others, it looks like we're being cold logicians. I think my issue is with the 'cold' part. I wouldn't exactly characterize the INTP as a vulcan or something. Why can't we be 'hot' logicians, or warm ones?

Yeah, I did't like the way I put that either. Almost everything can be interpreted by logic and it seems to yield the best empirical results. Actually, you could define logic as an inability in people. We cannot accept certain absurdities "a thing is itself and not itself", but our inability is not proof of actuality.

Fuck if I know what anything is based in.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yeah, I agree. It's just a matter of perspectives I think. We could just be playing around, or passionately involving ourselves with something, but from the outside to others, it looks like we're being cold logicians. I think my issue is with the 'cold' part. I wouldn't exactly characterize the INTP as a vulcan or something. Why can't we be 'hot' logicians, or warm ones?

Yeah, I did't like the way I put that either. Almost everything can be interpreted by logic and it seems to yield the best empirical results. Actually, you could define logic as an inability in people. We cannot accept certain absurdities "a thing is itself and not itself", but our inability is not proof of actuality.

Fuck if I know what anything is based in.

Let's see if any insight can be obtained with an example. Suppose we wish to prove the Pythagorean Theorem (sum of squares of sides of a right triangle). Well there are at least 25 proofs! If we have a cold teacher with proof of it with pure logic and the dullest proof the audience might be bored. So bored they might not pay attention and wouldn't even get the logic. The teacher could say, "I'm here to prove the theorem and how you feel about it I don't give a damn." Then there could be the charismatic professor who uses geometry to show the easiest most natural geometric beautiful proof that astonishes the viewer. They are entertained and see beauty.

Both are proofs with logic, but one takes into account the people watching. One is cold and one is hot.

 

[Black Rose]

If deductive is cold, inductive is warm.

Forged by fire and not by ice, soft and mellow has lips of tender joy.

Entropy, the harsh sting of death deprave the lust of minds desire without loves divine grace and wisdom.

True enough but we were talking about the importance of logic not its universality.

Oh please be kind if indeed ye find that your powers do serve thee well.

YouTube - Pein Goes To The Canteen

 

[Hadoblado]

False. Mike isn't only looking at paper. He has a pre-conceived idea of blue and green and at some point will jump to blue. Right? On the other hand he may see black as he will fall asleep after the 342nd piece of paper, lol.

erm... no? mmmmmm... Mike has no idea that you are going to switch to blue. I should have made that clear. MY BAD
It's supposed to be a proof against the case for logic, as the argument form is valid and all the premises are true, but the natural conclusion (that Mike will see green as blue) rings in our minds as false.

(1) - Mikes views an arbitrarily large number of colours, one at a time, ranging from most green to most blue.
(2.1) - the difference between shades of green/blue is so minute that it is below Mike's absolute threshold. Mike cannot tell the difference between slide 1 & 2, 45 & 46, 10,000 & 10,001 etc.
(2) - There will be no point at which Mike will see a slide as 'bluer' than the last.
(C) - Mike will see get to the final slide, the most bluest of blues, and still perceive it as the same colour that he was looking at originally.

 

[BigApplePi]

(C) - Mike will see get to the final slide, the most bluest of blues, and still perceive it as the same colour that he was looking at originally.

Hmmm. You mean he will see no change in color? That I might agree with. But won't he have long forgotten what slide #1 looked like? Can't you use this experiment to change a color into ANY other color? What about noticing the background colors? Hmmm. Let's run this experiment. We will need someone who will sit there for 1,000,000 slides.

 

[SpaceYeti]

erm... no? mmmmmm... Mike has no idea that you are going to switch to blue. I should have made that clear. MY BAD
It's supposed to be a proof against the case for logic, as the argument form is valid and all the premises are true, but the natural conclusion (that Mike will see green as blue) rings in our minds as false.

(1) - Mikes views an arbitrarily large number of colours, one at a time, ranging from most green to most blue.
(2.1) - the difference between shades of green/blue is so minute that it is below Mike's absolute threshold. Mike cannot tell the difference between slide 1 & 2, 45 & 46, 10,000 & 10,001 etc.
(2) - There will be no point at which Mike will see a slide as 'bluer' than the last.
(C) - Mike will see get to the final slide, the most bluest of blues, and still perceive it as the same colour that he was looking at originally.

That's silly. Just because the difference between each individual paper is imperceptible, it doesn't mean the difference will forever go unnoticed. He may not see the difference in each slide, but he will see an overarching change when considering a number of slides. Your logic is not sound. To presume an overall change will not be noticed just because very small changes go unnoticed is ridiculous. Sure, if you use logic wrong and bad, you might try to make a case against it. Your conclusion is flawed because your premises do not include all the necessary information to form a sound conclusion. IE, your conclusion is valid, but it is not sound. It's important to keep in mind that proper logic is both valid and sound. A case against logic using an unsound argument as your proof is itself unsound.

 

[BigApplePi]

That's silly. Just because the difference between each individual paper is imperceptible, it doesn't mean the difference will forever go unnoticed. He may not see the difference in each slide, but he will see an overarching change when considering a number of slides. Your logic is not sound. To presume an overall change will not be noticed just because very small changes go unnoticed is ridiculous. Sure, if you use logic wrong and bad, you might try to make a case against it. Your conclusion is flawed because your premises do not include all the necessary information to form a sound conclusion. IE, your conclusion is valid, but it is not sound. It's important to keep in mind that proper logic is both valid and sound. A case against logic using an unsound argument as your proof is itself unsound.

SpaceY. Let's look at this again. Let's say the background is black so there is nothing to compare with. If one starts with green and proceeds, one's memory won't know where or what to remember, so how can there be a comparison? In a sense one is looking at no change. They won't see a change in color. Now can we assume the viewer has a memory of what green looks like and what orange looks like? After 1,000,000 viewings, is it possible that their memory of what orange looks like will be retained, but what green or blue looks like will be erased in favor of what is in front of them?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Possible, sure, but unlikely. You don't forget blue just because you've seen a long string of green. Further, it actually does become a different color. Different cones will be stimulated and the sensation will be different, it just takes a long time. If the temperature in a room which is 15 degrees C were raised an imperceptible amount every minutes, the person who's in it will eventually realize it get's hotter, he simply won't realize it right away, since each change is lower than his sensing threshold. Just because each individual change is below the threshold for sensing, it doesn't mean the person isn't going to remove his jacket by the time the temperature gets to 35 degrees. Similarily, the last image is blue. He may not see the blue right away, but it will eventually register, and it will become more prominent as the images change. He will not perceive blue as green, though if he had no prior knowledge of blue beforehand, he may mistaken call the two colors "green". That doesn't mean he's fooled into thinking they're the same color.

 

[Melllvar]

This argument is basically equivalent to Zeno's paradoxes, claiming the impossibility of an infinite number of infinitesimal changes summing to a non-infinitesimal net change. Instead of discrete sheets of paper just use a long, continuous sheet that changes from green to blue. Before the color can change from green to blue, it has to first change from green to half-green half-blue, and before that it has to change from green to 3/4ths green, 1/4th blue, and so on. In any infinitesimal unit of length there is no change occurring, so if no change is occurring at every point on the sheet then how does it change at all? You can show this is false mathematically using convergent series (probably integration as well), and there are probably non-mathematical explanations too.

Beyond that it's just a question of recognition: a frog in a pot will not jump out if the temperature is slowly raised to boiling, but if you just throw in a boiling pot it will obviously notice the change. Similarly a person may not notice themselves aging, but will be aware of the fact that they don't look the same as they used to. It would seem that recognizing gradual change does require comparison to previous memories, or else it really will not be noticed. But that's different from the theoretical argument of whether or not gradual change is possible at all.

 

[BigApplePi]

Possible, sure, but unlikely. You don't forget blue just because you've seen a long string of green. Further, it actually does become a different color. Different cones will be stimulated and the sensation will be different, it just takes a long time. If the temperature in a room which is 15 degrees C were raised an imperceptible amount every minutes, the person who's in it will eventually realize it get's hotter, he simply won't realize it right away, since each change is lower than his sensing threshold. Just because each individual change is below the threshold for sensing, it doesn't mean the person isn't going to remove his jacket by the time the temperature gets to 35 degrees. Similarily, the last image is blue. He may not see the blue right away, but it will eventually register, and it will become more prominent as the images change. He will not perceive blue as green, though if he had no prior knowledge of blue beforehand, he may mistaken call the two colors "green". That doesn't mean he's fooled into thinking they're the same color.

I was thinking the temperature thing also ("great minds think alike").

I'm wondering if there is an Se (objective sensation) issue here and temperature could be different than color. You see, temperature affects the body in that it changes the body in a way different than color. But then there are temperature experiments where one is fooled. I don't quite recall the experiment, but it could go something like this: Put one finger in cold water and a finger from the other hand in hot. Now put both fingers in the same luke warm water. I'm willing to bet the fingers will misjudge and be fooled into one thinking the water is hot and the other cold. Try it.

Anyway if the fingers judge differently that is because they have "memory." Not so necessarily with green. I like your statement of no prior knowledge of blue beforehand. Suppose he had no prior knowledge of green either. Then if he is shown all those green-blues, how could he remember the original green? It would gradually be erased by the flood of new memories. He couldn't tell if the final blue was the same as the original green because he would have forgotten what green looked like.

Could the moral of the story be one needs comparison to detect change? I have another example: inflation. When I first came to New York, subway fares were 15 cents. Now it is $2.25. For a long time I never noticed the inflation. That is because I never thought back to the 15 cents until I asked myself that number. With the proper setup for the color experiment comparison is absent.

 

[BigApplePi]

Mellllvar. Looks like this experiment is cooking. Age is a good point. I have to get an old picture of my younger self to see the change.

The Zeno paradox I don't believe applies but comes close. The difference is the Zeno activity converges while the continuous sheet of green to blue changes at a constant pre-set linear rate.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Your body measures temperature relative to it's own. When one finger is dipped in hotter water, the temperature of the finger increases. Same with the cold finger. When they are put in the same bowl of lukewarm water, you sense the relative heat from each finger, which have been cooled or warmed.

 

[Melllvar]

The Zeno paradox I don't believe applies but comes close. The difference is the Zeno activity converges while the continuous sheet of green to blue changes at a constant pre-set linear rate.

Hm, I think technically you may be correct, Zeno's paradox actually refers to the situation of traveling half the interval, then half the remaining interval, then half the remaining, etc. (or basically summing the series 1/2^n from 1 to infinity). I was thinking that since colors could be codified as numbers the same way distance can (e.g. green = 0, blue = 1, halfway = 1/2, etc.) they'd be the same.

In the case that the "distances" are all equal and infinitely small though, you can still get the correct answer using integration. Proof:

dC = infinitesimal change in color
dr = infinitesimal change in distance
The color changes uniformly across the sheet (constant pre-set linear rate), so dC/dr = k (the derivative is constant).
Separation of variables gives C = k*r + p. (p is the constant of integration)
Our initial conditions are that at r = 0, C = 0 (it's green on one side) and at r = 1, C = 1, (it's blue on the other side). Solving breaks it down to C = r (because I picked nice initial conditions).

Actually I may have just done the proof in reverse, showing that the color is different at different positions because it does change. In any case, you can easily assume C = r and derive dC/dr = constant from that, which would show that if the color is uniformly different across the sheet then it changes at a non-zero rate everywhere on the sheet.

So maybe it's not technically Zeno's paradox, but the idea is the same and they both have nice easy logical proofs. Whether or not anyone cares is another question, however.

 

[kantor1003]

a frog in a pot will not jump out if the temperature is slowly raised to boiling, but if you just throw in a boiling pot it will obviously notice the change.

Where did you get this from? Strange how something like the boiling frog can come to be accepted as truth by so many when it's only a useful metaphor and not literally true.
(or can be used to, more often than not unintentionally, spread potential misinformation and misconceptions about phenomenas like the one discussed here; perception of color.)

 

[Melllvar]

Ok, so I was wrong about that. Thanks for the heads up. I can't find the thumbs up smiley so you get bird-king-man instead:

 

[^_\\]

Logic is the very foundation of real knowledge. It's essentially the basic understanding that contradictions do not really exist.

I like this.

"Of course art criticism is objective." "Jews/blacks/gays are subhuman" "Cartoons of the prophet? BURN THE EMBASSY." The first conclusion relies on the same kind of logicless thinking that allows the second and third, wherein a feeling is taken as objective reality. The basic conflation between "I hate this" and "this is evil/bad/must be destroyed" Is a fundamental error people couldn't make if they were more logical.


edit: Xeno's paradox: What do you think of planck time as an empirical solution?