A Wish Of Perfect Logic

I'm not one much for logic. of course this will get the usual logical people upset and start in on berating me. I have a minimum understanding of it and tend to view it as a tool to detect bs. other than that, it's like what mister Spock says, logic is the mere beginning of wisdom.

But when I think about things, i do have one wish in regards to logic. i wish that I could have absolutely perfect logic.

For you see, with absolutely perfect logic, regardless of how verbose or factual an assertion of an opinion is, absolutely perfect logic will defeat any assert or argument presented.

No matter what.

Because sometimes i get really frustrated with all the yelling and screaming of people at each other. And reasonable and sensible people, when confronted with such perfect argument, would realize their error ad correct themselves appropriately. But, it wouldn't work on all people.Only those with a sense of decency and integrity would respond in such a manner.

Dishonest argumentative people will continue to do just that. use any dishonest trick they can bring to bear against the assertions, but even at that those people would still lose because being absolutely perfectly logical will see those assertions and tricks and treat it like wet tissue paper, and go right through them.

And then, there are those who just deny everything. In short, if their hair was on fire, they wold deny that their hair is on fire and let it burn. if somebody else would put out the fire, they will continue to, well, deny it.

But I just think that sometimes it would be nice to be able to have such debating skill.

But that's me. So the only thing i can try to do is be a reasonable person, and a decent one.

I am not perfect, and I often fail, but, reasonable and decent people respond best to well, reason and decency.

That's just me.

And sometimes i think i have a very unique definition of these things.

I think that logic is like science. It helps to use it in a debate not because it is persuasive. It does so because it resembles the structure of reality better than other modes of thought.

Ancient Herald said:

I'm not one much for logic. of course this will get the usual logical people upset and start in on berating me. I have a minimum understanding of it and tend to view it as a tool to detect bs. other than that, it's like what mister Spock says, logic is the mere beginning of wisdom. But when I think about things, i do have one wish in regards to logic. i wish that I could have absolutely perfect logic. For you see, with absolutely perfect logic, regardless of how verbose or factual an assertion of an opinion is, absolutely perfect logic will defeat any assert or argument presented. No matter what. Because sometimes i get really frustrated with all the yelling and screaming of people at each other. And reasonable and sensible people, when confronted with such perfect argument, would realize their error ad correct themselves appropriately. But, it wouldn't work on all people.Only those with a sense of decency and integrity would respond in such a manner. Dishonest argumentative people will continue to do just that. use any dishonest trick they can bring to bear against the assertions, but even at that those people would still lose because being absolutely perfectly logical will see those assertions and tricks and treat it like wet tissue paper, and go right through them. And then, there are those who just deny everything. In short, if their hair was on fire, they wold deny that their hair is on fire and let it burn. if somebody else would put out the fire, they will continue to, well, deny it. But I just think that sometimes it would be nice to be able to have such debating skill. But that's me. So the only thing i can try to do is be a reasonable person, and a decent one. I am not perfect, and I often fail, but, reasonable and decent people respond best to well, reason and decency. That's just me. And sometimes i think i have a very unique definition of these things.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, what seems logical, makes pretty good sense, and all, doesn't end up working as anticipated. An example... trickle down economics. Seems like a logical and great idea, hence why so many people really supported the idea and the politicians that were on board with it, including most Dems back in the day,...but in reality it doesn't work. So logic is a starting point, then there has to be testing. Logic gets the hypothesis, not necessarily the desired result.

Logic is not so much a tool of debate as it is a tool of philosophy. In real life, which is where most of us live, an emotional decision, or emotionally impulsive decision. often proves the best course.

Provided of course we have good fundamentals, which is where today's dysfunctional family is failing us.

Summerwind said:

Unfortunately, what seems logical, makes pretty good sense, and all, doesn't end up working as anticipated. An example... trickle down economics. Seems like a logical and great idea, hence why so many people really supported the idea and the politicians that were on board with it, including most Dems back in the day,...but in reality it doesn't work. So logic is a starting point, then there has to be testing. Logic gets the hypothesis, not necessarily the desired result.

Click to expand...

I wasn't really trying to be logical, just reasonable.

I view those as two different things.

In a debate, using logic won't necessarily change your opponent's opinion but, that of those who are observing.

Summerwind said:

Unfortunately, what seems logical, makes pretty good sense, and all, doesn't end up working as anticipated. An example... trickle down economics. Seems like a logical and great idea, hence why so many people really supported the idea and the politicians that were on board with it, including most Dems back in the day,...but in reality it doesn't work. So logic is a starting point, then there has to be testing. Logic gets the hypothesis, not necessarily the desired result.

Click to expand...

The same is true of income redistribution programs aka the "safety net" or force down economics. The stated purpose was to be a temporary hand up and not a permanent hand out (a logical hypothesis) yet even when we see that it is not working (needs ever more funding and for ever longer periods of time) then logic goes out the window. Instead of (logically?) admitting that giving folks a fixed amount of help for a fixed amount of time works for very few (many simply remain or become more dependent on that help) we are instead told that stopping (or even reducing) any of that income redistribution is (emotionally?) impossible and the only (logical?) thing to do is to increase the amount of and/or duration of that help. Welcome to the permanent "safety net" society where government grows dependency and dependency grows government.

There is no such thing as a perfect logic. What is, or is not, logical, is dependent entirely upon individual perspective. One simple missing piece of information can render what was a logical statement, completely illogical. In order for there to be perfect logic, one much have perfect knowledge, that is, to know EVERYTHING, accurately.

I'll give you an example.

Fire must eat and breath. It moves, it dances, and can travel great distances. A fire can create more, new fires, IE, offspring. And a fire can die.

Ergo, fire is alive.

Logical, but only from an ignorant perspective. Not on the nature of fire, but on the nature of life, and what it is.

You'll find that logic varies wildly from person to person.

If one were to look at the mastermind logical computer in "I Robot" then a perfect logical conclusion may also be dangerous.

KevinKohler said:

There is no such thing as a perfect logic. What is, or is not, logical, is dependent entirely upon individual perspective. One simple missing piece of information can render what was a logical statement, completely illogical. In order for there to be perfect logic, one much have perfect knowledge, that is, to know EVERYTHING, accurately.

I'll give you an example.

Fire must eat and breath. It moves, it dances, and can travel great distances. A fire can create more, new fires, IE, offspring. And a fire can die.

Ergo, fire is alive.

Logical, but only from an ignorant perspective. Not on the nature of fire, but on the nature of life, and what it is.

You'll find that logic varies wildly from person to person.

Click to expand...

That's hysterical. It's completely illogical. "And so I see..." All logic begins with definition. In the above statement we would first have to define the words "fire." "eat," and "breath." Meaning, we would never proceed in that direction; your third sentence would never be a consideration.

We're all capable of a rationale but I don't think many people possess logic. Logic is a possession, a creation, a tool of critical thinking.

betuadollar said:

That's hysterical. It's completely illogical. "And so I see..." All logic begins with definition. In the above statement we would first have to define the words "fire." "eat," and "breath." Meaning, we would never proceed in that direction; your third sentence would never be a consideration.

We're all capable of a rationale but I don't think many people possess logic. Logic is a possession, a creation, a tool of critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Define logic.

KevinKohler said:

Define logic.

Click to expand...

Logic is a mathematical form of deduced reasoning used to assess the validity of statements. It forms the basis of all true philosophy.

Logic is the reason American government exists; it was Ramus logic as applied to biblical exegesis that created the New England Way. So it's also something that occupies a place in our history.

What's interesting to me in the above is that there are at least two comments that veer to the sphere of economics. From the early 80s to 2008 our economy experienced tremendous growth and expansion, creating in the process a majority working comfortable class. Needless to say today's economic environment is not the economic environment of the early 80s, so perhaps there is less need to turn to national leaders for macro-economic rescue, but there are some similarities. As we all know, if we were to resurrect Reagan today he would no doubt recommend some of the very same solutions; he would once again, for example, utter these words: "supply-side economics." Because gainful employment IS an issue with Americans and regulation is killing us. It's stifling industry and choking the nation's small business. We cannot grow the economy when we are not permitted to introduce and expand business. Thus we applied the term laissez-faire to Reagan era deregulation, but at one time the economy, before politicized, was actually controlled by the private banker. And that was also a very productive era, so...?

Pick up a phone, call every employment agency in the book, interview them all, and they will all tell you the same thing: We have people looking for jobs, qualified people who want to work, but the employers we regularly deal with are all saying the same thing: they cannot grow business because regulation is killing them.

This idea that we will hum along living on dividends and investments is going to implode; this idea that the rich will support the poor, while maintaining government spending, is going to fail. We're going to see increased taxes, and decreased services; people will go without medical care and some will literally starve. And what do we have, what do the nation's leaders offer us? The hubris of the obtuse; the nation's leaders are befuddled, caught between a failed political philosophy, reliant on the voter they've led to believe it, and very real economic crisis.

DDD said:

If one were to look at the mastermind logical computer in "I Robot" then a perfect logical conclusion may also be dangerous.

Click to expand...

logic is also used to support things like racism.

Edit:

But it was also conflicting logic that caused HAL 9000 to kill those astronauts on board the Discovery.

Logic is good. I just wish more people would use it.

Ancient Herald said:

I'm not one much for logic. of course this will get the usual logical people upset and start in on berating me. I have a minimum understanding of it and tend to view it as a tool to detect bs. other than that, it's like what mister Spock says, logic is the mere beginning of wisdom.

But when I think about things, i do have one wish in regards to logic. i wish that I could have absolutely perfect logic.

For you see, with absolutely perfect logic, regardless of how verbose or factual an assertion of an opinion is, absolutely perfect logic will defeat any assert or argument presented.

No matter what.

Because sometimes i get really frustrated with all the yelling and screaming of people at each other. And reasonable and sensible people, when confronted with such perfect argument, would realize their error ad correct themselves appropriately. But, it wouldn't work on all people.Only those with a sense of decency and integrity would respond in such a manner.

Dishonest argumentative people will continue to do just that. use any dishonest trick they can bring to bear against the assertions, but even at that those people would still lose because being absolutely perfectly logical will see those assertions and tricks and treat it like wet tissue paper, and go right through them.

And then, there are those who just deny everything. In short, if their hair was on fire, they wold deny that their hair is on fire and let it burn. if somebody else would put out the fire, they will continue to, well, deny it.

But I just think that sometimes it would be nice to be able to have such debating skill.

But that's me. So the only thing i can try to do is be a reasonable person, and a decent one.

I am not perfect, and I often fail, but, reasonable and decent people respond best to well, reason and decency.

That's just me.

And sometimes i think i have a very unique definition of these things.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not! I would never wish anyone to have perfect logic - and I am not being sarcastic here. Perfect logic removes emotions like faith, love and hope from the equation, and what would this world be with them?

Ancient Herald said:

I wish that I could have absolutely perfect logic.

Click to expand...

I am not so sure you do what that.

There is a concept in philosophy, that has spilled over into other academia, called the "Perfect Solution Fallacy." It can be called many other things but it is a true fallacy as it comes down to a concept of applying pure logic to any given problem (or series of problems.) The idea that perfect logic generates perfect solutions to a condition. It states that by consequence of perfect logic, any and all other proposed solutions to a problem should be rejected if any part of the problem still exists after implementation of the proposal. Another way to put this is, a solution should be rejected because it is not perfect even if it is the best option available. For either the most parties involved in the problem, or because it solves the majority of the sources for the problem, etc. it does not matter because perfect logic rejects all non-perfect answers.

Reasonable and sensible people (in debate, in politics, even in systems of science) tend to come to compromises, which is entirely contradictory to the idea of perfect solutions from absolute perfect logic. Perfection is a concept anyway, applying the concept to logic suggests perfect clarity of thought and capacity for all potential consequences. Does not have to be adversarial to emotional based responses, but usually is. There is another term for that, and it is usually applied to deity of some sort irregardless of the overwhelming numerous examples we can observe that perfection does not nor has it ever existed. Another philosophical thought, even realization, when applying the principles of questioning what we know in new terms and new standards. We cannot find an example of true perfection, we cannot even really define on those standards.

It means there is no perfect argument, it is an impossible standard to suggest one confirming the Perfect Solution Fallacy, or Nirvana Fallacy.

If all you have to work with is 10 units of anything, but 20 units is the perfect solution, it means the application of 10 units as best you can apply them is always rejected under perfect logic. It also means by extension from that realization about perfect logic, anything resulting in any consequence means not doing anything at all. That mental exercise just took you the majority of the way to the thinking when we question existence and purpose. Since you set the standard of perfect argument, that inherently means perfect solution. So in concept applied, if you only have the resources to feed 10 people on this planet, but have a population of 20 people to feed, then don't feed the 10 people... as that is not a perfect solution even if everyone dies because the best option available keeps only 10 people alive. Without perfection, by your own standards, there is no reason to try anything less than perfect answers.

All you really have the choice to do, with any sense of realism, is to be open to the best solution available to any problem presented to you even if there is the inherent and realized consequence of it not being perfect. In debate, in politics, in life, etc. honestly there is no other path to take... otherwise, there is no reason to exist.

Think about that...

Ancient Herald said:

I'm not one much for logic. of course this will get the usual logical people upset and start in on berating me. I have a minimum understanding of it and tend to view it as a tool to detect bs. other than that, it's like what mister Spock says, logic is the mere beginning of wisdom.

But when I think about things, i do have one wish in regards to logic. i wish that I could have absolutely perfect logic.

For you see, with absolutely perfect logic, regardless of how verbose or factual an assertion of an opinion is, absolutely perfect logic will defeat any assert or argument presented.

No matter what.

Because sometimes i get really frustrated with all the yelling and screaming of people at each other. And reasonable and sensible people, when confronted with such perfect argument, would realize their error ad correct themselves appropriately. But, it wouldn't work on all people.Only those with a sense of decency and integrity would respond in such a manner.

Dishonest argumentative people will continue to do just that. use any dishonest trick they can bring to bear against the assertions, but even at that those people would still lose because being absolutely perfectly logical will see those assertions and tricks and treat it like wet tissue paper, and go right through them.

And then, there are those who just deny everything. In short, if their hair was on fire, they wold deny that their hair is on fire and let it burn. if somebody else would put out the fire, they will continue to, well, deny it.

But I just think that sometimes it would be nice to be able to have such debating skill.

But that's me. So the only thing i can try to do is be a reasonable person, and a decent one.

I am not perfect, and I often fail, but, reasonable and decent people respond best to well, reason and decency.

That's just me.

And sometimes i think i have a very unique definition of these things.

Click to expand...

I am addressing your argument here, Herald, NOT YOU.

I agree, considering the few discussions I have had with you, that you are not much for logic.

I also suggest, with as much respect as possible, that you are a person who refuses to correct himself when appropriate...and who instead will insist on something that cannot logically (!) be defended. (I'll leave alone the implications of your comment about "sense of decency and integrity" playing a significant part in that.)

Frank Apisa said:

I am addressing your argument here, Herald, NOT YOU.

I agree, considering the few discussions I have had with you, that you are not much for logic.

I also suggest, with as much respect as possible, that you are a person who refuses to correct himself when appropriate...and who instead will insist on something that cannot logically (!) be defended. (I'll leave alone the implications of your comment about "sense of decency and integrity" playing a significant part in that.)

Click to expand...

I refuse to correct myself when i feel the person is using dishonest means to attempt to change my opinion or just personally attack or are just being argumentative without any kind of substance.

what i respond to is open, honest, objective, and unbiased discussion. Nothing else.

I do know the difference and can often spot them, but not always.

And you have not been that at all.

Ancient Herald said:

logic is also used to support things like racism.

Edit:

But it was also conflicting logic that caused HAL 9000 to kill those astronauts on board the Discovery.

Click to expand...

See

As far as DP and debates are concerned though, just keep away from logical fallacies, that is all. You would be a good debater by practice if you keep away from those.

Unless you are a basement kind of a person?

Ancient Herald said:

I refuse to correct myself when i feel the person is using dishonest means to attempt to change my opinion or just personally attack or are just being argumentative without any kind of substance.

what i respond to is open, honest, objective, and unbiased discussion. Nothing else.

I do know the difference and can often spot them, but not always.

And you have not been that at all.

Click to expand...

All I have ever used with you is open, honest, objective and unbiased arguments.

For you to suggest I have not (at all!)...is an example of what I called to your attention in my first post.

What you "preached" here is appropriate and reasonable. Time for you to start practicing what you preach.

Ancient Herald said:

I wasn't really trying to be logical, just reasonable. I view those as two different things.

Click to expand...

Hmm, your contradict yourself and your OP then because they clearly utilize the term logic not reasonableness.

Your wish of being perfectly logical, and therefore necessarily winning debate, is illogical.

absolutely perfect logic will defeat any assert or argument presented.No matter what.

Click to expand...

Winning a debate can have nothing to do with logic. Logically you must admit that. The entire school of sophistry came to popularity back in the BC...maybe history should be something you study in addition to philosophy? Else you may repeat what we already learned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

In addition, Sophists had great impact on the early development of law, as the sophists were the first lawyers in the world. Their status as lawyers was a result of their extremely developed argumentation skills.[13]

Click to expand...

The first laywers in the world, tied to Plato and Aristotle, why is this not more commonly known?

In any case, the point is this. If you intend to develop the skills to win more debates, you would be more successful to learn persuasive debate (some modern derivative of sophism), than logic.

Regarding Frank, yes, I have not seen evidence that he debates, or debates logically. So don't feed him.

But you don't need anyone else to confirm that, logic is objective and anyone being logical should arrive at the same conclusion. Having the illogical person ACCEPT that they are in the wrong, is not in your control. In fact, the more persuasive you are, in some cases it can actually empower the opposition both individually, AND as a group. We do after all like it when underdogs win, and we don't always like purely logical victor, etc.

Now, to really blow your mind, it is perhaps a survival trait that a purely logical argument simply is not that powerful when it comes to human interaction (outside of science, math, specific formal settings). If logic ALWAYS resulted in debate success, we'd be at the mercy of the logical, and humans aren't too fond of anyone one power having absolute authority, we have a wide variety of skills and instincts that help us tear such imbalance down...

I didn't mention it but I do know what you mean. Hopefully in your journey for knowledge you'll come to find out that most good things are unfortunately a burden to bear.
Similarly, the better you get at something, the smaller your peer group, it can be isolating.

You get to be logical for you, but you will likely have to be for others who refuse it as well, and tolerate them, even embrace them. Such is life. And if you do climb really high, it may be a good idea to keep grounded, engage in social situations where you are not "high" up, in other words. For just that purpose.

Notice you can even see that in the wiki...

They contributed to the new democracy in part by espousing expertise in public deliberation, since this was the foundation of decision-making, which allowed and perhaps required a tolerance of the beliefs of others.

Click to expand...

Tolerance of the illogical? Blasphemy!

If I am considering logic from a personal perspective, I think logic is best used to tamp down irrational emotions. It certainly puts an end to needless suffering in many cases.