|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Here's a place for logic, that can twist brains. I recommend coffee house.
My answers to htonibutter's topic. 6. Some glasses are breakable things? (illicit process??)7. All whales are warm blooded animals 8. Nothing can be concluded 9. All pansies are pretty objects. 10. Affirmative conclusion from negative premise. Cannot conclude anything. Hypothetical syllogisms11. Invalid, affirming the consequentt. 12. Valid, Affirming the antecedant. 13. Invalid, denying the antecedant. 14. Valid, denying the consequent (but was it negative?) 15. Invalid, denying the antecedant. 16. Invalid, denying the antecedant 17. Valid, Affirming the antecedant 18. Invalid, Affirming the consequent Questions 6 - 10Questions 11 - 18 This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-28-2005 06:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hey Mike Hager, have a go. I know you like logic. You're welcome in my topic. I feel guilty because I've acted belidgerently to you in other topics. You started out here at evc, talking about logic and you were polite. I feel guilty because we had a ding dong and you've been somewhat frustrated/angered ever since. Let's be peaceful now. whadda you say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Ofcourse, logic, I think, personally, can be useless in ascertaining truth. For example, if you look at those questions, they're in no way certainties. Logic can be valid but untrue, for example;
All turkeys are evolutionistsDan is a turkey Dan is an evolutionist. Here, the conclusion is true, the premises are false and the logic is valid. But the logic can be valid and the whole structure false. All pretty girls are called ShraffDan is a pretty girl Dan is called SHraff. Another All admin are grumpyAsgara is an admin Asgara is grumpy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 499 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
My question is what's your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
My point is that so often on this site I get people saying to me, "that's a fallacy mike, begging the question", or "that's a fallacy mike, circular". They think that if my argument is invalid, that it is untrue. Not so.
Example; 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??? That means that logic is irrelevant, and it has only told us that despite my argument being circular, it's true anyway. So then, these fallacies don't really tell us much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i like this bit.
BUT WHAT IF the God of the bible is true??? That means that logic is irrelevant
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
My position of faith is far more logical than the evo atheist/agnostos here. They often remind me that if another religion is true, then mine isn't. Thus the wiz speaks;
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Another brick in the wall. I don't know how many religions thre are. Let's say there are 100 for arguments sake. I believe in 1, not 99. You believe in 0, not 100. Only 1 can be true, and 99 not true, or 100 not true. We cannot know as to whether all are untrue, but LOGICALLY we CAN know that 99 are untrue. I don't believe in 99. So logically I'm one better off than Shraff. Well, just for laughs. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-29-2005 08:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
My position of faith is far more logical than the evo atheist/agnostos here. They often remind me that if another religion is true, then mine isn't. Thus the wiz speaks; well, that's a fallacy of false dilemmas, on their account. unless one's religion claims to be the only true one, and thus the dilemma is imposed by the religion itself and not debater. see, if that's the case, if another religion is true, then the religion that says "no other religion is true" is false, and therefore that religion cannot be entirely true.
I don't know how many religions thre are. Let's say there are 100 for arguments sake. I believe in 1, not 99. You believe in 0, not 100. Only 1 can be true, and 99 not true, or 100 not true. We cannot know as to whether all are untrue, but LOGICALLY we CAN know that 99 are untrue. I don't believe in 99. So logically I'm one better off than Shraff. yes, well, see, the trick is to know which 1 is right, right? whether the odds are 1 in 100 or 0 in 100, you're still roughly as good off as one of the 99 that are wrong. the odds become even worse as the numbers get bigger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6488 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
You are correct, logic can only show that a conclusion does not follow from given premises.
It is also true that a conclusion that is not valid can easily be factual. What I (and I am often one to post my ideas when I think I see a flawed argument) mean when I point out use of a fallacy is that while the conclusion may or may not be true, due to the fallacy we don't have any evidence for one position or another. No support for the conclusion has been provided. So, giving a fallacious argument for a point is really no different then simply stating your conclusion. It is a completely unsupported assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6488 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Okay, since this is becoming kind of a minor seminar in logic, let's see what we can do with Mike's argument here. I think the following premises accurately reflect Mike's stated position. Note that I am not addressing whether I think the premises factual.
Premise: There are an unknown number of religions in the set X.Premise: All X are either true (T) or false (F). Premise: If one out of the set X is T, all others are F. Mike concludes: Therefore X-1 must be F. Also valid, I think, as far as it goes. We are next presented with a question. Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW. By the way, thanks for the specific invitation, MTW.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1365 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW. if this were a probability test, past results would not affect probability of future results, so you can't count on a trend. and if you get one right one and stop, the limit as x -> infiniti would yeild 1. any sufficiently large number of religions would be bound to yeild one true one eventually, even if the chances themselves do get smaller and smaller. right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4015 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Mike, if you feel a brainfart coming on from too much logic, hit your thumb with a hammer. If you find yourself getting in a box again, repeat the dose. IOW, you can only stray so far away from reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6488 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
I know bupkus about probability, limited to one bunny stats course way back when. You're probably right on the level you are discussing, but using logic, sorry.
I'll give out a hint (and I'm a little guilty about this)... It's a bit of a trick question. Since MTW sort of started this and I am formalizing his argument, I will wait on him to reply before I give the answer. By the way, sorry to all if I sound arrogant and condescending.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
So glad you joined in Mike, to correct my rants and modify them into a simple coherent form.
Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW. Nice summary. In fairness I'll admitt that I put my own biased spin in one of the premises, because I said that if one is true, the rest are false. Since we have no way of knowing this, my only backing for the premise is that religions are so very subjective, and completely different in what story characters they have. There are so many things to investigate in each religion, that I think it highly likely that many religions would negate other totally different ones. For example, does anyone think the Egyptians would have had a place reserved for Yahweh? One has to depend on the religious texts s/he has been issued, as totally correct in what they are saying, in order that they are possibly true. So I admitt the task is just to daunting, but I think (personally) that if Christ is true, then Allah is negated (if we look completely to the Christian texts as true scripture), and if Buddha is then Spinoza's isn't.etc......., I think we could do this with concentrating on what each religion says, and seeing if their religious texts negate other religions.
Of the two positions, "All X are F" and "Of X, X-1 are F and 1 is T", which is the more logical? I leave that question to the public, and especially to MTW. Well, I can only say that IMHO the logical position is that 99 are untrue. That's because we can't fully know if 100 are false, (because we then dismiss the possibility of there being an actual true one). But if my premise that "if 1 T then the rest F" is true, then surely logically, we can actually know that 99 are false. But it depends on if my premise is true, which you correctly identified as a premise. So the fact that we can only know 99 are false depends on whether we think other religions could be true. I think that all these myths are so complex, that they in no way allow for other myths to be true. How many can really be true if we think about this rationally? Do we expect more than one intelligent agency? I think that to buy into each and every myth would be highly inprobable, as I think people know that they can't all be true. It's a matter of what text speaks reality, and explains reality the best. And another factor, what if a religion which is unknown is true, which isn't a religion? Like God being some kind of gaseous nebula that expelled the universe from the rectum. (sorry if I babbled a bit there.....I might not get back to you in a while, but you seem to be more logically inclined than me anyway Mike, so you can take over if you want). This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-30-2005 08:28 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6488 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
Again, I don't mean to be arrogant, but once an argument is formalized, we have only the stated premises and valid inferences from them to work with.
With the three premises, as I said, the conclusion "X-1 must be F" is valid. The trick question was that neither of the other conclusions "All X are F" and "X-1 are F and 1 is T" can be inferred. Both are examples of the non sequiter fallacy, by the way. So, since neither conclusion is valid, one cannot be more logical then the other.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024