Logic

[Papersock]

We all use some kind of logic to figure out what is true and what to believe, right?
How can we tell if one person's conclusions are more logical (and therefore, supposidly, correct) than another person's conclusions?
Reworded: Is one logic more logical than another logic?
What is logic, anyway?
Does it sound like nonsensical gibberish to you now, too?

 

[Comprehend]

We all use some kind of logic to figure out what is true and what to believe, right?
How can we tell if one person's conclusions are more logical (and therefore, supposidly, correct) than another person's conclusions?
Reworded: Is one logic more logical than another logic?
What is logic, anyway?
Does it sound like nonsensical gibberish to you now, too?

actually, whether something is logical or not has nothing to do with the truthfulness. It only determines whether the conclusion follows from the premises. If it does, it is sound, if not, unsound.

So how do we determine what is logic and what isn't? Formal logic, there is an entire discipline devoted to the study. It is essentially math with words and a great deal of fun.

 

[Papersock]

actually, whether something is logical or not has nothing to do with the truthfulness. It only determines whether the conclusion follows from the premises. If it does, it is sound, if not, unsound.

Of course. I could reason that because the earth looks flat it must be flat, but that doesn't make it true.

So how do we determine what is logic and what isn't? Formal logic, there is an entire discipline devoted the study. It is essentially math with words and a great deal of fun.

I should find a book on the subject. I'd probably find it interesting.

 

[yossarian22]

Of course. I could reason that because the earth looks flat it must be flat, but that doesn't make it true.

But then I could point out how you can see the top of a ship before you can see the body, showing that the Earth is curved. Or just point to a photo from space.

I should find a book on the subject. I'd probably find it interesting.

Always great books. Most of them seem to harp on the various kinds of arguments, though.

 

[Sunstone]

It can be easy to dismiss logic if you haven't studied it. Bimbo Talk Show Hosts dismiss it all the time.

 

[kadzbiz]

Logic can vary from person to person depending on one's perception. One could argue that God's presence is not logical, but then others can argue the opposite for example.

But then I could point out how you can see the top of a ship before you can see the body, showing that the Earth is curved. Or just point to a photo from space.

The ship scenario doesn't prove a curve, only that the ship is rising compared to the horizon. The photo from space of the Earth is 2 dimensional - ie. the Earth still looks flat and circular, pizza-like, to me.

 

[Comprehend]

Of course. I could reason that because the earth looks flat it must be flat, but that doesn't make it true.

right. In that case your argument would look something like this:

p1. things are as they appear.
p2. the earth appears flat.
C. the earth is flat.

That would be sound logic but also untrue.

 

[yossarian22]

The ship scenario doesn't prove a curve, only that the ship is rising compared to the horizon.

Meaning its curved.

The photo from space of the Earth is 2 dimensional - ie. the Earth still looks flat and circular, pizza-like, to me.

But the entire earth is not visible.from space. Do the sections you are unable to see suddenly disappear?

Besides, there are videos of the earth spinning on its axis.

 

[yossarian22]

right. In that case your argument would look something like this:

p1. things are as they appear.
p2. the earth appears flat.
C. the earth is flat.

That would be sound logic but also untrue.

but p1 makes a logically unsound assumption.

1.This looks like a caramel candy.
2. we can assume that this is a caramel candy because it looks like one.
This candy is actually a butterscotch candy.

 

[Comprehend]

but p1 makes a logically unsound assumption.

1.This looks like a caramel candy.
2. we can assume that this is a caramel candy because it looks like one.
This candy is actually a butterscotch candy.

A premise cannot be unsound and soundness has nothing to do with truth. When you use a phrase like "logically unsound" those words actually mean specific things in the rules of logic.

 

[Aqualung]

but p1 makes a logically unsound assumption.

1.This looks like a caramel candy.
2. we can assume that this is a caramel candy because it looks like one.
This candy is actually a butterscotch candy.

Your argument is logically unsound, even if it's true. Premises don't have to be proven or even accepted outside the realm of the logical argument. If they did, nothing would ever get accomplished using logic, ever.

 

[Willamena]

right. In that case your argument would look something like this:

p1. things are as they appear.
p2. the earth appears flat.
C. the earth is flat.

That would be sound logic but also untrue.

I would say, rather, that it is sound logic, and hence true in context.

 

[kadzbiz]

This is what I'm talking about difference perceptions. You can't argue with someone's else's hard unwavering belief.

Meaning its curved.

No, it doesn't, necessarily. It could mean that the ship is floating in space and just coming up over the horizon. Nonsensical? Maybe, but logical to some.

But the entire earth is not visible from space. Do the sections you are unable to see suddenly disappear? Besides, there are videos of the earth spinning on its axis.

Well, I say to you that the whole Earth IS visible from space. What sections that I am unable to see? Oh, you mean the other side of the flat Earth? Videos of the Earth spinning? OMG. Haven't you seen the effects they can do in movies? You're so easily duped!

I'm trying to make a point. Logic is what is in your own head. Your perception. When someone says, "Oh that makes sense." or "That's logical." it's because they can see it from your point of view, your perception, but if they can't and see it only from their own point, their own perception, then you will never convince them otherwise.

 

[Aqualung]

No, it doesn't, necessarily. It could mean that the ship is floating in space and just coming up over the horizon. Nonsensical? Maybe, but logical to some.

"Logical to some" is nonsensical. "Logical" only follows if it has met a well-defined, unchanging list of criteria (for example, does the conclusion follow from the premises). Logical and sensical or meaningful or believable or are not synonyms.

 

[rojse]

right. In that case your argument would look something like this:

p1. things are as they appear.
p2. the earth appears flat.
C. the earth is flat.

That would be sound logic but also untrue.

It is fallacious logic - one of the in-built premises behind the conclusion is incorrect.

 

[yossarian22]

Your argument is logically unsound, even if it's true. Premises don't have to be proven

An assumption used as a basis for an argument must be true at all times, or the assumption must address points where it does not apply.

 

[yossarian22]

This is what I'm talking about difference perceptions. You can't argue with someone's else's hard unwavering belief.

true

No, it doesn't, necessarily. It could mean that the ship is floating in space and just coming up over the horizon. Nonsensical? Maybe, but logical to some.

Contradicting the testimony of the sailors.

Well, I say to you that the whole Earth IS visible from space. What sections that I am unable to see? Oh, you mean the other side of the flat Earth?

even then, the entire earth would not fit, and portions would be missing.

I'm trying to make a point. Logic is what is in your own head. Your perception. When someone says, "Oh that makes sense." or "That's logical." it's because they can see it from your point of view, your perception, but if they can't and see it only from their own point, their own perception, then you will never convince them otherwise.

There is such thing as universal logic. People just ignore it in favor of their beliefs

 

[SoyLeche]

It is fallacious logic - one of the in-built premises behind the conclusion is incorrect.

No, the logic is fine, that's the point. Any logical argument is only as good as it's premises. That's where the argument always should lie.

If we could all get a good basic understanding of logic we could get to the real discussions - which premises we should start with.

 

[Aqualung]

An assumption used as a basis for an argument must be true at all times, or the assumption must address points where it does not apply.

No, you're wrong. An assumption used as a basis of an argument must simply be accepted by members participating in that discussion to be true. We could not possibly ever use "true" statements because statements can never be proven true, as the type of reasoning necessary to arrive at these true statements will go backward ad infinitum. As some point, we all have to stop and say, "Well, for the time being, let's just assume this is true." For example, the law of gravity can only be assumed to be logically true if we all just agree, for the time being, that our senses of proprioception and vision are true.

 

[rojse]

Here is a list of fallacies from wikipedia.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia