Logic as Arbiter of Truth

[Whit]

     "You could also look up the specifics of the 'Magic Bullet Theory'." he says, pretending this thread was still on track.

[smoothmoniker]

Whit:

I think I should read that book. I'd like to hear the rest of the context for the argument.

Based on my admittedly brief reading of your redaction, it seems to fall under the equivocation of terms fallacy. It assumes that the criteria for "existing" are identical in every case. While the meaning is the same, the establishment of the case is different. Any universal, such as "redness" or "law of gravity" exists in a different sense than "that chair" or "my arm" exists.

An Operable Universal, one that operates on concrete instances of other entities, still "exists" even when it lacks the concrete material to operate upon.

In a similar vein, you might ask, "Does the law of gravity exist in a vacuum?" Surely it does, it simply lacks the material upon which to operate and demonstrate its existence.

-sm

[Whit]

     The book is okay, I don't really suggest it. It really drags at parts. Pick it up at the library, or look it up online. (Yeah, it's there, you people don't think I'd type all that in do you?) It directs you towards some interesting sources though. Also, if you can work through the slow stuff the guy has some interesting opinions. Plus, he puts them into a real world context, which I like.
     I still hate Kant...

[smoothmoniker]

yeah, you have to hate Kant ... it's one of the prerequisites for modern thought. Everything written in the field since Critique of Pure Reason has been written because of the author's hatred of Kant.

That aside, I don't think the "law of gravity is nonexistent" argument is logically sound. It relies on equivocation of terms within different circumstances. It supplies criteria for evaluating the existence of concrete instances of a thing, and tries to apply them against a Universal property.

-sm

[Whit]

yeah, as an exercise in logical constructs, go ahead and stipulate any "facts not in evidence".

You'll probably have to define your own closed system for this to make any kind of operable sense.

     Oh sure, strip this away why don't you?

[wolf]

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance has a number of interesting aspects to it.

I've read it several times, and each time have brought something different away from it. (can't for the life of me remember what each of those things were, of course)

It was originally recommended to me by a friend who was SO into the book that he bought copies of it whenever he found it for cheap (25 cent copies at the bookswap were not unusual finds for a while) and would hand it out to people he felt needed to be enlightened.

We would sit and have long discussions about Phaedrus and the notion of "quality" ....

That was back in college, which is where most folks find ZatAoMM for the first time.

I reread it a couple years back when a big anniversary edition was published ...

Time and experience drastically changes perception.

Here's my take on it now.

Phaedrus was CRAZY. Off the deep end mad as a hatter crazy. (He's not as, but continuing to be crazy in Lila)

[Whit]

     Well, there is such thing as digging to deep. I think Phaedrus was unaware of this. As human's we have inherant limitations. We simply can't know everything. I think that's why faith is so attractive. It allows one to assume knowledge without backing it up with definate proof.
     As far as the gravity thing goes, yeah, it does go too far. As I said, a misuse of logic. It does present a logical arguement. The fact that you can make a logical arguement to disprove it doesn't change anything. You didn't ask for an irrefutable example. Just an example. For that matter, I'm somewhat reminded of Juju's 'Cult-Mindset' thread. As long as you limit your questions it's easy to get "Logical" answers.

[juju]

Originally posted by Whit
As I said, a misuse of logic. It does present a logical arguement. The fact that you can make a logical arguement to disprove it doesn't change anything. You didn't ask for an irrefutable example. Just an example.

Doesn't the fact that it misuses the term "exist" make it illogical?

Anyway, it's all well and good to have a closed system, but in the real wold we don't always know all the facts. Does unknown information that would affect an outcome make an argument illogical?

[Whit]

     I think that the arguement is fine as long as you don't apply any more reason than it gives. I mean that if you take you arguement and terms as he means them then the idea that there wasn't gravity before Newton makes logical sense. It's just that the smallest bit of common sense throws that idea out the window immediately. It's a silly idea that we would never take seriously. Yet, in context his arguement does follow logic. It just ignores many other factors. Like that we know we had gravity before Newton.

Does unknown information that would affect an outcome make an argument illogical?

     Yes. That's why so many scientific theories, even ones that have been treated as fact for years, get disproven. Newtons own theory is a good example. What passes every concievable test today may not do so tomorrow.

[smoothmoniker]

Juju and Whit, I think you're kind of stumbling into the crux of what I was working through. In the real world, there are two parts to establishing a rational argument. The first is the reliability of data from which to work, and the second is the integrity of the logical construct within which you frame the data.

My point was, you may use bad data and prove a wrong conclusion, but the structure of a sound logical argument does not in itself yield wrong conclusions. The reason for defining a closed system is to make sure that you use only "good" data (self defined terms and ideas).

The importance is this, I think. Instead of throwing up hands and saying "you can make a logical argument for anything", you have to disect your opponents argument by either questioning his data, or demonstrating the fallacy of his logic. If the data is good, and the logical argument is sound, then the argument stands

sorry, its late, I'm a Scotch or three to the good, and I'm being long winded.

-sm

[Undertoad]

Fer me, maybe what it boils down to is: logic and reason are the good tools we have to work stuff out, but we completely lack the understanding of so much that we usually mess it up even when we think we've gotten it right.

Also, we have built-in tendencies to assign meaning to stuff even when there is none, and to find patterns where there are none. This confuses us.

And our logic skills are limited so much, and our egos so strong, that we often "lose faith" in logic when it fails to get us to where we want to be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If you take the the information available and apply logic, the result is an opinion which may or may not be fact. As the available information changes the opinion may change accordingly, unless you're Radar.

[Whit]

Fer me, maybe what it boils down to is: logic and reason are the good tools we have to work stuff out, but we completely lack the understanding of so much that we usually mess it up even when we think we've gotten it right.

     Damn UT, I was working a response last night when I gave it up due to falling asleep. I said something very similar in about ten times as many words...
     There comes a point when it's just overanalyzing anyway. It's tough to know when that point is. End of the day though, effect means more than defining the best possible parameters. For example, in my younger days I played a lot of Street Fighter II. This guy with an IQ well over 160 had studied it and read all kinds of things about the fine details of the game. He used it to tell me why stuff couldn't happen, after it did. "Blanka's standing strong punch is faster than Guile's low forward kick! There's no way you can hit me first!" He'd say it with passion and certainty too. I'd take a long drink of my coke, look him in the eye and say, "Really? That's funny, I can do it again if you like." His data came from the programmers. It was good. It was also a waste of time. For all his info I was just a better player.
     When you hit this point using "logic" just becomes an exercise in mental masturbation.

[Undertoad]

Maybe things get so complicated so quickly that it really challenges the limits of the brain, because there are so many different variables.

When we first went looking for a house to buy, I quickly got overwhelmed and confused. I went about it the wrong way, mentally. I would try to work out the worth of various things, trying to turn it into a big equation. "It has a crack in this wall that we have to fix, that's worth about $3000... we'll need three major appliances... the commute is 10 minutes shorter but it has no view..." I thought if I could create that equation, I could simplify the house process somehow.

Tried to keep all the things in mind that affected the choice, tried to figure a value of them. But I only wound up dizzy. We looked at 19 different places and pretty soon I couldn't remember all the factors I was trying to keep in my head.

The better way would have been to rate a few factors from 1 to 10 -- real-world factors like cost, condition, location, etc. and then go intuitive: do I want to live here? What would it probably be like, every day? Could I live like that?

[Whit]

     What??? You would apply common sense to a complicated decision making process?!? That's a good way to... actually... that's a good way.