Do you mean that FORMAL logic is not a natural gift of humans? Who would disagree with that?If that's what this topic is about, sorry I butted in.Thanks for explaining the card test to me.

Modulous,I would, if I thought pointing out Faith's favoured position would help. That she can evade, dodge, claim evidence at the same time saying she doesn't need it, be a hypocrite, unashamedly illogical, insult their opponents position, & then their opponents get admonished when they do a fraction of that.But it won't, so I won't.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

The "dodging" around here is being done by the evos who can't think their way out of a paper bag but lord it over the creos though they can't follow the simplest point.

Faith, You truly are the queen of dogma.Try following this simple point, go on, try: Got it yet?Try this then:"Cladistics & stratigraphy" works just like any other science, a prediction is made that is then validated by the data.Easy isn't it?The evidence I have provided is arrived at via the same method as the rest of science that you don't deny. Your position is hypocritical if you deny one thing for being self-validating, yet accept another, despite it being self-validating (your criteria).With me so far?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

How amusing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty funny.

I have not posted anything disagreeing with that. But that is different from saying that logic is thinking.

You're just kidding yourself that what you are doing is making "a prediction ... that is then validated by the data."

The DICTIONARY I quoted back there says that logic is thinking. "Thinking" = "reasoning" for those addicted to obsessional hairsplitting. What is the matter with you people???This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 01:37 PM

Enough!

I see my fears that this post was threatening to degrade into a steaming cesspool of disrespectful insanity (yes, on both sides). So no more on this! I will be putting a post in the appropriate thread to explain why I decided to interject.This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 05-March-2006 06:32 PM

Sentence structure is logical in the Romance and Germanic languages, and Russian too as far as I can tell from a six weeks' attempt to learn it. I suspect there may be a different kind of logic involved in some other language groups but I would expect them to be structured logically somehow or other JUST BECAUSE HUMAN BEINGS ARE INHERENTLY REASONING THINKING CREATURES.THOUGH THE EVOS AROUND HERE COULD GET ME TO CHANGE MY MIND ABOUT THAT!This message has been edited by Faith, 03-05-2006 01:45 PM

Ah, right. That would explain the vast progress of humanity during the past 400 of enlightenment scientific thought, and the abject failure of religious thought to develop anything more sophisticated than the water clock for over 1000 years of the Dark Ages.Oh, wait, no, it doesn't explain that at all. Did it occur to you that the deficiency in thought and reasoning is yours, not scientists?

quote:

---

Can a card with a secondary color show a even number?

---

You aren't supposed to know that for this task.The information given is all that is needed to figure out the answer, which is, as I said, a very basic abstract logic problem.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-05-2006 03:28 PM

quote:

---

The DICTIONARY defines logic as thinking, for heaven's sake, defines it as REASONING.

---

"Thinking" is not synonymous with "reasoning". Nor is all "thinking" logical."Reasoning" is a type of "thinking", but "reasoning" is not the only kind of thinking there is.Remember, dictionaries describe how words are used by people, they do not proscribe meaning.

quote:

---

What's with you guys with your insistence on your specialized definition?

---

In general, using specific definitions for words makes for clearer, more productive discussions.Here's what RR said: What those of us who have bothered to do some reading up on the subject have learned is that the above claim is generally untrue.Most people can't recognize a contradiction/fallacy when they see it, and they have to put in effort to learn to avoid such pitfalls in thinking.If logic beyond the exceedingly basic correlational type was so natural, then people wouldn't make such trivial errors so incredibly often.See, that's the kind of thing one discovers when one looks into the subject like we have.

quote:

---

I have no other answer to the puzzle. If I want to prove whether an even number is always backed by a primary color I'm going to have to check the even number, the primary color and the nonprimary color.

---

Incorrect.Most people can't do this easily, or at all, even though it is a very basic, very uncomplicated abstract logic task, so you shouldn't feel bad about it.Humans aren't very good at abstract logic.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-05-2006 03:42 PM

quote:

---

I think there's something basically fundamentally wrong with the scientific mentality. I've been coming to that conclusion for some time now. Something lacking in the reasoning department, and in the plain humanity department for sure.

---

Yeah, you'd better stop going to the doctor, taking any medications, eating any food that is prepared in a restaurant (microbiology helps prevent foodborne illness), using any antibacterial product or antiseptic, going to the dentist, using the internal combustion engine in any form, using the computer, or using electricity.The "scientific mentality" produced all of those things, and it's fundamentally wrong, so you'd better just lay off.