The Problem of Restricted Binary Logic.

The Problem of Restricted Binary Logic.As far as I can see there are basically three modes of thought that any one person can adopt. Each finds its niche, and to the individual proves serviceable. If you like they could be thought of as the system of logic we use to validate what we see, read or are told.As I said these modes of thought come in three flavours.Fuzzy Logic (FL): 1 and 0 with all the decimal point values in between.
Binary Logic (BL): 1 and 0 only (with the possibility of 0.5 for when something is truly 50/50)
And
Restricted Binary Logic (RBL): 1 and 0 but only applied as “I am right you are wrong”FL
Those who operate under FL will take all the evidence and or rational for a particular point, or piece of evidence, and weigh it’s probability. This will rarely ever result in a clean 1 or 0 but a decimal point value somewhere in between. The FL user will then gauge the ”truth’ of this point according to this value.An interesting trait of those who use FL is a reluctance to use absolutes despite being a valid conclusion. Those who operate on FL would much rather use qualifiers such as ”probably’ or ”in all likelihood’ , as they realise that even what they do accept as absolute could be flawed and thus feel more comfortable in not asserting absolutes.BL
BL is far cleaner and is the of ”choice’ for the vast majority of people. It is the evaluation system that reads any piece of information as either right or wrong. 1 or 0. With BL there is no grey, no complication, and little confusion. Decisions can be made easily because something is right or wrong, good or bad and so on.It’s not that those running on BL are blind to the grey, the decimal places, it just they only seem to be able to cope if they can render a ”strong probability’ to a ”certainty’ and an ”unlikely’ to a ”no chance’. FL vs BL
Discussions and debates between FL and BL users are usually fraught with difficulty, as the FL user is loathed to use absolutes and the BL user finds it hard to work with anything other than absolutes. Either the FL user is forced to make generalised absolutes (obscuring his point), or the BL user is required to try and interpret concepts and subtleties that when rendered as absolutes become meaningless or misleading.For example:
If the FL user states that “the object in question will most likely be red”, the BL user will comprehend the statement as “the object in question will be red”. If the object turns out to be blue then the BL user will claim that “the FL user was in error for saying that the object would be red”. The FL user on the other hand will, while admitting that “the object did indeed turn out not to be red”, will assert that “his comment was not, necessarily in error”. The BL user will be confused as he will think the FL user is saying that he was right when he said the object would be red, when the FL user is thinking that his opening comment didn’t actually exclude the possibility that the object could be another colour, and so can not ”technically’ be considered wrong.The above is a good example why trying to debate between different logic variants can run into difficulty. Another example is the frequent confusion on the part of the BL user on the differences of possibility and probability.However the problems in debating between FL and BL pale into insignificance when we consider the problems with the third Variant. Restricted Binary Logic.RBL
The user of RBL like BL renders all information into absolutes, right or wrong, good or bad. This is not much of a problem, as rational debate can still work if you freely apply 1 or 0 where appropriate in considering the evidence.However where RBL fails significantly is in this respect. RBL doesn’t round to the nearest whole (ie >0.5 = 1 & <0.5 = 0). It always rounds down . So any statement other than a positive absolute (1) will become the negative absolute (i.e. 0.99999999 becomes 0). Moreover, this rounding down only makes it easier for the RBL based thinker to then assert the positive absolute for their own view because if the opposing view is not true (0) then that must mean their view has to be correct (i.e. as the FL user will have a tendency to leave some wiggle-room in his statements the RBL user will use that wiggle-room to invalidate the statement in favour of their own.In addition to rendering any probability less than 1 as 0, should a person running RBL encounter an absolute positive that is in opposition to theirs they will by default assign 1 to themselves and 0 to the opposition. This is regardless to whether or not the FL or BL user can show problem with the validity of the RBL user’s data.For example a FL user says “Pink Unicorns, in all probability, are unlikely to exist”. This is rendered by the RBL user as “Pink Unicorns exists because the FL user can not say for certain that they don’t.” (assumes the RBL user holds that Pink Unicorns do indeed exist, else the FL user’s statement would not have been in conflict)In short, the RBL system operates on one state. The state that they are always right and that there is no probability that they are wrong. Most people that run on RBL are not by the strictest meaning of the term ”Dishonest’, because they genuinely can not see that the possibility of their point of view being wrong even exists.So here is the problem..
As the RBL user has such a intractable system of logic that they will happily continue to assert that Back is White and White is Black despite being presented with an over abundance of evidence that conclusively shows that this is not the case, how on earth can FL or BL users ever hope to win the argument?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I didn't know there were all these different kinds of logic. I thought there was just Logic.I'm going to try some of these out.

Robin,I believe these are all types of logic involved in computer software and hardware design. In fact, most digital circuits operate using restricted binary logic.

I'm pretty sure that's an outstanding post, and anyone who disagrees is wrong! I'm not going to quibble about things like choice of labels and such. Great analysis.I strongly believe the different types of logic each have their place. There are situations where choices must be made and actions must be taken, where to hesitate and analyze is worse than any possible action. Military battles comes to mind. Intelligence plays an essential role, but in the absence of sufficient intelligence he who sits and waits is likely lost.There are other contexts where thought and analysis are key - science comes to mind, of course.Seen in this way, problems arise when a decisive take-charge type of guy accustomed to making quick decisions by making simplifying black and white assumptions comes into an environment where deliberation and drawing fine distinctions are necessary. When soldier meets scientist, it isn't pretty.--Percy

Great observation Percy.... and I know it's a bit off-topic... but this is the reason I think the current president of the US is having so many problems.

This is the wrong viewpoint. If I'm wrong and I "win" an argument I have, in fact, lost big time. In the long run winning the argument isn't what you should desire; you should desire to correct those places where you are wrong.An RBL user is almost always the LOSER because they can never lose an argument.

And most importantly, interesting.When we look at this from a deduction point of view, this could be seen as a difference in the way we feel about our premises. For our FL thinker - he can sometimes give a definite conclusion based on the premises, but with the proviso that he is only right if his premises are right, which is not certain.BL people feel that there isn't need to question the premises in order to evaluate the conclusion. As long as there is no reason to doubt the premises, the conclusion must be true (assuming that the logic is sound of course).And finally RBL assumes that whatever premises he generates must by definition be true. Anyone who disputes the premises is clearly wrong about their own conclusions.Does that sound about right? Incidentally I'm more of FL type of guy, though I can slip into BL if necessary.

The biggest problem is with people who fail to recognise the limitations of logic. Strict binary logic is fine so long as you recognise that the conclusiosn can be no more certain than the premises - and it is properly applied. Any loophole means that an argument fails according to strict binary logic.The bizarre posiiton is what you call "Binary Logic" which admitx to uncertainty but always quantifies it as a 50:50 proposition. If the quantification were left out and we simply had yes/no/uncertain it would be an improvement over strict binary logic for describing many real-world situations. But a quantification of uncertainty that must be frequently wrong is simply a very strange thing to do.m

While logic is indeed logic, I needed some labels to attach my definitions of the three main patterns of quantification used by people (in my observation) and as these concepts were the best fit for mine, I used them. I could have as easily used Apple, Mango and Kumquat respectively. You are right. “ . win the argument” was a poor choice. It was chosen in the face of frustration at debating against RBL when the user resolutely refuses to concede the point despite evidence that he should. I guess, “ . persuade the RBL user to concede that they are, or could be, wrong on a point they previously held as true” would have been a better phrase. Near as damn it And yes, one person isn’t limited to any one mode of rationalization. By and large, we are all capable of FL, prone to BL and can occasionally, on some specific subjects, develop an acute case of RBL, is just that different people will default to one mode or another as their normal mode of operation. Again, a problem of labels in the first draft of a new thought in my head. And while “Yes/No/Uncertain” is indeed an improvement over strict BL is smacks more of FL due to the undefined nature of ”Uncertain’. I justified (to my self) the inclusion of the 50/50 in BL simply because it in it self is the border of the Yes/No. It is purely binary, Yes/No, Either/Or, Good/Bad, Right/Wrong, it lacks the ambiguity of FL.As an extension to what I mentioned to Modulous, and as Percy’s opening line demonstrates beautifully, the different modes can get blurred in their application internally or externally. They can also fall prey to perceptions of definition, such as when you say (quite rightly) that what I’ve described as BL isn’t strictly BL.

My favorite quote of those that I think I made up is:The problem with one knowing everything is that one can't learn anything.

I think there are two ways of seeing this,. Firstly you can look at the situation as if there are two modes of thought that are "wrong" and one that is "right". I think that it is better to describe it as three modes of thought which have their place but must be used appropriately.In real situations we always have some degree of uncertainty but it may be low enough to ignore in some cases - or we may choose to ignore the uncertainty to explore the necessary implications of a proposition. Properyl employed it's power is in the certainty of it's conclusions. On the other hand it may be tricky to employ - it is necessary to lay out the premises and definitions correctlym clearly and unambiguously - which some people seem to find difficult.Fuzzy logic works with uncertain propositions but requires us to quantify the level of uncertainty. It's power lies in offerign more flexibility in dealing with real-world situatiosn where uncertainty is common. It's weakness is in dealing with situations where the uncertaintty cannot be quantified.The in-between lgic, whcih does not quantify uncertainty is weaker, since it does not allow us to do so much with uncertain propositions. However, we must recoognise that this may be the case in real situations. Simply admitting that is a gain, compared to trying to force everything into a situation where uncertainty is either not allowed, or has to be quantified.n

Would a person operating on restricted binary logic pass the Turing test?

"So here is the problem..
As the RBL user has such a intractable system of logic that they will happily continue to assert that Back is White and White is Black despite being presented with an over abundance of evidence that conclusively shows that this is not the case, how on earth can FL or BL users ever hope to win the argument?"By the way you have defined your logic types there is no way to beat a RBL .. but i think when we talk about human those that appear to be RBL are not , they are not work logically on any level and attempting to use logic to "debate" with thenm will always fail because its the wrong tool.. you might as well use quantom machanics to debate which brand of coffee tastes better ..simple eg football fans.. a true fan belives that there team is the best team to support, even if they have failed to win for ages , and they keep coming last ..logic plays no part in this .. and this is part of human nature ..logic is fine , people are the problem ..

On the other hand:Knowing some things frees one from having to learn about everything.