Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 79 (8908 total)
 Current session began: Page Loaded: 05-26-2019 12:56 PM
28 online now:
Coragyps, PaulK, PsychMJC, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Post Volume:
 Total: 852,058 Year: 7,094/19,786 Month: 1,635/1,581 Week: 14/443 Day: 14/34 Hour: 1/3

EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House

# Logic

Author Topic:   Logic
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

 Message 16 of 110 (204009) 04-30-2005 8:04 PM Reply to: Message 15 by mikehager04-30-2005 12:40 PM

Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
Maybe I'm just not understanding you. You're not arrogant, but use English rather than symbols because I'm not good with symbols I'll be honest (I just find myself having to memorize what symbols are which I find difficult). Also, I don't know all the symbols to logic.

Let's look at my setup a mintue;

I believe in 1, not 99. You believe in 0, not 100

It's a matter of positions, not just premises, IMHO. In that - you think all 100 are false(I'll assume), whereas I believe 99 are false. But we can only have the knowledge that 99 are false.

I think it's reasonable to conclude, from common knowledge, that only one religion can be true(a possibility).

I think it's reasonable to conclude that it's also a possibility that none are true.

However, if we conclude none are true, we negate the possibility that one is true. Also, we know only one could be true, therefore 99 cannot. So it seems that it's a knowledge that 99 are not, but not a knowledge that 100 are not. Do you get me?

Think of it this way now; If 100 are false OR 99 are false, we CAN SAY 99 ARE false, whatever the truth is. But we can't say 100 because that negates the red.

I say "logically" because it's the only conclusion we can make; Let's look at it like this;

Premise; there are 100 religions
Premise; one might be true
Premise; none might be true

conclusion; 99 cannot be true. (even if 100 are untrue, we are limited logically because we can only conclude 99 aren't). Remember, we're only dealing with what we DO/can know (when accounting for ALL possibilities). I hope you understand!

PS. I'll definitely be away for a while, so there's no rush to get back to me, but I might get a chance to read your post.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-30-2005 08:18 PM

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by mikehager, posted 04-30-2005 12:40 PM mikehager has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 05-02-2005 4:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded Message 22 by mikehager, posted 05-02-2005 12:48 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Lammy
Member
Posts: 3607
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004

 Message 17 of 110 (204045) 05-01-2005 3:11 AM Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz04-29-2005 5:38 PM

Re: Logic can be moot itself
 the wiz writes:The bible says God is true, and God is true because the bible tells me so.It's a circular reasoning which is invalid.BUT WHAT IF the God of the bible is true???

Mike, the underlined sentence isn't even a circular argument, although it does commit another fallacy. Try to figure out which one.

You really need to pay more attention to formal and informal logic in everyday statements. It might make you sound smarter like me ;)

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2005 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 45 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 12:36 PM Lammy has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

 Message 18 of 110 (204237) 05-02-2005 4:39 AM Reply to: Message 13 by mikehager04-30-2005 3:55 AM

Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
 It's a bit of a trick question.

no, i know, but it was a bit of an attempt to actually provide a valid answer. logically, the chance of one religion being correct does get smaller and smaller. however, with exceptionally large numbers, presumably one would be correct.

however, the trick part:

we don't know if religions are right in their claim that no other religion is right. they might not be. and we don't know if one CAN be right at all. there's not really enough information. we don't really even know if logic may be applied to something that is essentially out of the realm of naturalism by definition...

אָרַח

 This message is a reply to: Message 13 by mikehager, posted 04-30-2005 3:55 AM mikehager has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 23 by mikehager, posted 05-02-2005 12:52 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

 Message 19 of 110 (204238) 05-02-2005 4:41 AM Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz04-30-2005 8:04 PM

Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
 I say "logically" because it's the only conclusion we can make; Let's look at it like this;Premise; there are 100 religionsPremise; one might be truePremise; none might be trueconclusion; 99 cannot be true.

doesn't follow. you have to add a fourth premise, "one being true excludes all others." otherwise, two might be true. or even all 100.

אָרַח

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2005 8:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 49 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 12:55 PM arachnophilia has responded

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member

 Message 20 of 110 (204273) 05-02-2005 9:43 AM Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz04-28-2005 8:24 PM

 Dan is a pretty girl

I've been told I have nice hair and lovely eyes, it's true. But I'm also awfully flat-chested.

I'd contribute something more, but I'm having difficulty seeing something more here than, "I couldn't prove God exists using logic. Therefore, logic is useless."

This message has been edited by [Dan's Clever Alias], 05-02-2005 09:44 AM

 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2005 8:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 05-02-2005 1:04 PM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

 Message 21 of 110 (204281) 05-02-2005 10:20 AM Reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz04-28-2005 8:24 PM

Premises
So, your conclusion is that if you start with faulty premises, you get faulty conclusions? I agree. It isn't a problem with logic - it's a problem for people who use faulty premises.
 This message is a reply to: Message 3 by mike the wiz, posted 04-28-2005 8:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4608 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004

 Message 22 of 110 (204319) 05-02-2005 12:48 PM Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz04-30-2005 8:04 PM

Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
 conclusion; 99 cannot be true. (even if 100 are untrue, we are limited logically because we can only conclude 99 aren't). Remember, we're only dealing with what we DO/can know (when accounting for ALL possibilities). I hope you understand!

That is exactly what I said. If fact, that is the only inference (that I can see) that can be drawn for the three premises. The place where you left the realm of logic was when you said that one position was "more logical" than another. There are no degrees. Either a conclusion is valid or it isn't.

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 04-30-2005 8:04 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4608 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004

 Message 23 of 110 (204322) 05-02-2005 12:52 PM Reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia05-02-2005 4:39 AM

Re: Logically my position is correct compared to Shraff's
You are exactly correct, I think. I was working with what MTW gave me in a small effort at helping him with what logic can do and what it can't, and why a fallacious argument is not support for an assertion.
 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 05-02-2005 4:39 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 119 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

 Message 24 of 110 (204324) 05-02-2005 1:04 PM Reply to: Message 20 by Dan Carroll05-02-2005 9:43 AM

 "I couldn't prove God exists using logic. Therefore, logic is useless."

unless of course the babelfish is real.

אָרַח

 This message is a reply to: Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-02-2005 9:43 AM Dan Carroll has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 26 by kongstad, posted 10-16-2005 9:52 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

 Message 25 of 110 (252131) 10-16-2005 9:10 AM

LOGIC Riddles
I created this riddle that can be solved using logical deduction alone. I've tested every angle, I think it's my best riddle yet. :) In my humble opinion, this is quite a tough one unless you've had experience. It requires some common sense aswell.

RIDDLE OF THE HAT THAT FITS

There are five hats in a row, marked 1-5 from left to right.

Goal:Locate the hat that fits you. Declare it's place in the row, it's colour and it's size. (There are 3 sizes of hat; Large, medium and small).

Premisses:

Only one hat fits you.

You are not a large size.

There are no small hats next to the green hat.

The white hat is large.

The pink hat is next to the green hat, on the right of it.

The green hat is not medium.

The blue hat is small.

There are no large hats either end.

The black hat is not medium size.

The white hat is not in the middle.

The blue hat is always leftward of the black hat.

There are no white hats leftward of the middle.

Hint: Just when you think you've finished deducing, have you? :)

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-17-2005 12:06 PM

 Replies to this message: Message 36 by Yaro, posted 10-20-2005 9:58 AM mike the wiz has responded

Member (Idle past 1011 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004

 Message 26 of 110 (252137) 10-16-2005 9:52 AM Reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia05-02-2005 1:04 PM

 The hats are like this from far left to far rigth: (Green,S),(Pink,M),(Blue,S),(White,L),(Black,S).My hat would be the pink Medium, placed as nr 2 from the left.

(Highlight empty area above to se answer)

/Soren

 This message is a reply to: Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 05-02-2005 1:04 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2005 12:27 PM kongstad has not yet responded Message 46 by macaroniandcheese, posted 10-20-2005 12:38 PM kongstad has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19845
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7

 Message 27 of 110 (252161) 10-16-2005 11:58 AM Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz04-29-2005 5:38 PM

Re: Logic can be moot itself
 They think that if my argument is invalid, that it is untrue. Not so.

Very much to the point.

Yes an argument can be invalid but true: the problem is that the truth can not be inferred from the logic but just happens to be so externally (probability low because it is coincidentally so, or probability okay because it is likely so due to other factors not included in the argument).

What this is in essence saying is "let's all try again, with feeling ... when it comes around on the guitar ...")

I don't know if you've seen it but there is a new site that was linked here on logic constructions and evaluations. It is TruthMapping.com
http://www.truthmapping.com/index.php

And really forces you to use the premise\premise\conclusion format, with ready critique of any mistakes, assumptions and false premises

(btw - a falsified premise does invalidate the conclusion ... :D)

Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

 This message is a reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 04-29-2005 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

 Message 28 of 110 (252168) 10-16-2005 12:27 PM Reply to: Message 26 by kongstad10-16-2005 9:52 AM

That's correct. Well done, logician. :)
 This message is a reply to: Message 26 by kongstad, posted 10-16-2005 9:52 AM kongstad has not yet responded

 Replies to this message: Message 29 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 10:41 AM mike the wiz has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1763 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004

 Message 29 of 110 (252366) 10-17-2005 10:41 AM Reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz10-16-2005 12:27 PM

Hey Mike,

Nice problem, sounds like you had fun making it. I was hoping you might post a solution; maybe you can use the same type of HTML that kongstad did?

I have two possible answers; one is the same as kongstad. I don't think I'm going to be able to figure out how to eliminate one. I'm interested in seeing your solution (or at least what "critical" steps were necessary or where you think "common pitfalls" will occur) to figure out what I'm not doing that I need to do.

Ben

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by mike the wiz, posted 10-16-2005 12:27 PM mike the wiz has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 30 by mike the wiz, posted 10-17-2005 11:09 AM Ben! has responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003

 Message 30 of 110 (252371) 10-17-2005 11:09 AM Reply to: Message 29 by Ben!10-17-2005 10:41 AM

Hi Ben, good to hear from you. That's a great picture of Ben and baba having fun.

I have great fun deducing, or failing to deduce. :( Lol. One can only try eh? Anyway, since I'm not that good a solver of riddles, I've taken to creating them instead.

First here's a helper;

 Hint; The order of hats is first established, by forcing them into place. Checking possible positions will help. For example, if you had the green and pink hat in 4th and 5th place, then the white hat couldn't go anywhere, because there are no white hats west of the middle, or in the middle. Checking each position will allow you to infer possible scenarios. It's the Columbo-technique of saying, "if this was the case, then this wouldn't be possible". :)As for the sizes; Just remember only one hat will fit you

I'm interested in your other answer, incase my riddle is faulty and there is another possible scenario. In which case I haven't tested it properly. :oI'm also interested because it's fun seeing how people think, and infer. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, as these riddles are meant to be confusing.

Now here's the full answer, so don't look if you still want to try and solve it;

 Kongstad's order was correct. What frightens me is how quickly he solved it, lol. (Green,S),(Pink,M),(Blue,S),(White,L),(Black,S).Yours is the medium size pink hat position 2, because "no large hat fits you" is one of the premisses. Also, the pink hat must be medium size, otherwise no hat would fit you. It can't be small, or the other small hats would fit, yet only one hat fits.

This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-17-2005 11:19 AM

 This message is a reply to: Message 29 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 10:41 AM Ben! has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 31 by Ben!, posted 10-17-2005 11:33 AM mike the wiz has responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next