• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:444:664] Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

I admire your charity, gfm. And your patience with obduracy. I've said this before, but it's worth saying again from time to time, just for the record. Anyway, after this latest series of exchanges it occurs to me that your interlocutors are persistently confused by your appeal to philosophy and logic because they do not understand that you yourself are doing philosophy and logic here (and in those other threads where they show the same confusion); they think you are referring them to some authoritative article or link, that you are relying, as they invariably do, on someone else's authority. They seem incapable of grasping the concept of someone actually using philosophy and logic in an argument without appeal to outside authority, and this no doubt because their minds have been so googled into "holy link" trains of thought that they no longer recognize independent critical thinking anymore. At this stage in the internet discursive free-for-all they've become as immune to critical thought as they are incapable of it.

That's just my two cents on the matter.

Happy Thanksgiving, my friend.

That's quite accurate, my friend... it's sad to see how many have completely forgotten these basic things...

Happy Thanksgiving to you too!
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

That's quite accurate, my friend... it's sad to see how many have completely forgotten these basic things...
A case in point is your example "If A, then A"

Your google-minded interlocutors objected endlessly to your clear and simple but trenchant use of the law of identity to illustrate the circularity of faith-based inference.
They demanded a holy-link instead of reasoning themselves to the transparent truth of your illustration.
Well, here are a couple of "holy links" for them:

Is circular reasoning always a fallacy?
Circular reasoning...is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

To see this is not a formal logical fallacy note that a circular argument is valid by considering the following proof with the reiteration (R) inference rule:

25yzvvb.jpg

https://philosophy.stackexchange.co...rcular-reasoning-always-a-fallacy/55592#55592

Inference Rules
2.3: Reiteration: If you have already inferred a sentence P, you can validly reassert it.
Philosophy 202: FOL Inference Rules

Not only was your illustration proper and correct; there's a logical proof of its correctness, i.e., its validity.

Your interlocutors are in need of a tutorial in logic, it seems to me. Theirs is just uninformed contrarianism.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

A case in point is your example "If A, then A"

Your google-minded interlocutors objected endlessly to your clear and simple but trenchant use of the law of identity to illustrate the circularity of faith-based inference.
They demanded a holy-link instead of reasoning themselves to the transparent truth of your illustration.
Well, here are a couple of "holy links" for them:



Not only was your illustration proper and correct; there's a logical proof of its correctness, i.e., its validity.

Your interlocutors are in need of a tutorial in logic, it seems to me. Theirs is just uninformed contrarianism.

You cut out the important bits where it says your argumenty is worthless
Nonetheless, the argument is an informal logical fallacy and it should not persuade those hearing it.

As a side note this may be an example for my question whether there exists a sound and valid argument that is informally fallacious: Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?
https://philosophy.stackexchange.co...rcular-reasoning-always-a-fallacy/55592#55592


Logic is NOT your forte Angel, but then neither is philosophy is it?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You cut out the important bits where it says your argumenty is worthless

https://philosophy.stackexchange.co...rcular-reasoning-always-a-fallacy/55592#55592


Logic is NOT your forte Angel, but then neither is philosophy is it?
You have to start reading more carefully, Quag. And get off the personal remarks. I've forgotten more about logic than you can ever hope to know.
As to your bogus charge: I left no such qualification out. It's right there in the quote:
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

But if you're feeling feisty, there's a new thread in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" which is right up your (blind) alley. It's about moral judgment in case you can't figure that out.

Namaste
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

You have to start reading more carefully, Quag. And get off the personal remarks. I've forgotten more about logic than you can ever hope to know.
The irony of this is certainly lost on you.
You insult people all the time then lie about it seemingly oblivious to the fact that all your BS is recorded for anyone to see.

As to your bogus charge: I left no such qualification out. It's right there in the quote:

Do you honestly think people cant look back at your post #502, just 2 posts before your dishonest claim to see that you are full of crap??
Actually it only said half of what the quotes that I added did from the same site


But if you're feeling feisty, there's a new thread in the Beliefs and Skepticism forum called "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" which is right up your (blind) alley. It's about moral judgment in case you can't figure that out.

Namaste

No need to be feisty you failed to prove your case and provided a link that destroys your pathetic and illogical claims then LIED and claimed you added in the quotes
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The irony of this is certainly lost on you.
You insult people all the time then lie about it seemingly oblivious to the fact that all your BS is recorded for anyone to see.

Do you honestly think people cant look back at your post #502, just 2 posts before your dishonest claim to see that you are full of crap??
Actually it only said half of what the quotes that I added did from the same site


No need to be feisty you failed to prove your case and provided a link that destroys your pathetic and illogical claims then LIED and claimed you added in the quotes
Are you delirious, man. Or just so full of spite it's making you stupid? You call me a liar? How dare you! I quoted from post #502 in correcting you.

Here's what I quoted from #502:
Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade.

Here's what you quoted from the site:
Nonetheless, the argument is an informal logical fallacy and it should not persuade those hearing it.

As a side note this may be an example for my question whether there exists a sound and valid argument that is informally fallacious: Can an argument be formally valid with sound premises and still be informally fallacious?

Where's the half you claim is left out? Show it, or shut up.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Are you delirious, man. Or just so full of spite it's making you stupid? You call me a liar? How dare you! I quoted from post #502 in correcting you.

Here's what I quoted from #502:


Here's what you quoted from the site:


Where's the half you claim is left out? Show it, or shut up.

Lol the lying insulting peewee brain is getting upset because he cant read

Your argument is worthless even according to your own links
Maybe that's why you try to avoid using links every time you do it proves you are completely full of BS
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Lol the lying insulting peewee brain is getting upset because he cant read

Your argument is worthless even according to your own links
Maybe that's why you try to avoid using links every time you do it proves you are completely full of BS
Your true colors emerge here, Quag. Three posts, three strikes, you're out.
Peace out, pilgrim.
Pester someone else.
My patience with you has run out.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Your true colors emerge here, Quag. Three posts, three strikes, you're out.
Peace out, pilgrim.
Pester someone else.
My patience with you has run out.

Your true colors emerged a long time ago when you lied and insulted me because you had nothing else to defend your BS with.
Your argument according to your own links is worthless try actually learning some logic instead of spewing BS even an elementary school child could see through


Your lies and insults have been noted, what would the God you believe in think of your dishonest insulting behavior?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Your true colors emerged a long time ago when you lied and insulted me because you had nothing else to defend your BS with.
Your argument according to your own links is worthless try actually learning some logic instead of spewing BS even an elementary school child could see through


Your lies and insults have been noted, what would the God you believe in think of your dishonest insulting behavior?

He's an agnostic based on his posts
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

He's an agnostic based on his posts
You think? He strikes me as a gnostic. His posts are all philosophy and good sense. That may be why they are unintelligible to you. I hear tell he talks to God.
And if he comes across this exchange of ours he's probably going to want to know why we're discussing the character of his religious belief in a thread on logic in the philosophy forum.
He does not suffer fools gladly.
 
Last edited:
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The key to logic is to shut off your emotions when doing it. Emotions can create a bias that can make it difficult to draw the proper logical conclusions, since emotions can act like they are conclusions from a previous logic session. If the proper logical conclusion appears to conflict with the emotions, one will not go there.

For example, the left hates Donald Trump, therefore it can't reason things that will not reinforce the hate. For example, the economy and low unemployment rate are good things, but since good things associated with Trump would create a conflicting feeling with their hate, reason cannot go there. Instead they will reinforce a variation of fake news, to add flies to the ointment, so as to maintain a hate based conclusion.

When the left became feminized, it became too emotional and lost its ability for critical thinking. This was by design since their leaders knew logic does not work properly with emotions. The result is a personality type who is easy to program using lies and propaganda. All that is now needed is to reinforce the feelings du jour, with propaganda and fake news; bad data that appears to add up to the feelings. They will not question any data that seems to reinforce their feelings. Sometimes it easier to explain something by showing what not to do and/or what it is not.

Mr Spock is a poster child for logic since he shuts off his emotions before analyzing a situation with logic. One does not try to steer logic, but rather lets logic go were it will. Then you accept the result even if you don't like it.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

...
Mr Spock is a poster child for logic since he shuts off his emotions before analyzing a situation with logic. One does not try to steer logic, but rather lets logic go were it will. Then you accept the result even if you don't like it.
Live long and prosper, wellwisher.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Hes a theist who doenst understand logic or philosophy

This is an Inversion Fallacy.

YOU are the one who doesn't understand those things, yet you project your issue onto others...

Maybe I should start up a spin-off thread for an "Advanced Logic" course and get into numerous common logical fallacies that people make and why they are fallacies...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

The key to logic is to shut off your emotions when doing it. Emotions can create a bias that can make it difficult to draw the proper logical conclusions, since emotions can act like they are conclusions from a previous logic session. If the proper logical conclusion appears to conflict with the emotions, one will not go there.

For example, the left hates Donald Trump, therefore it can't reason things that will not reinforce the hate. For example, the economy and low unemployment rate are good things, but since good things associated with Trump would create a conflicting feeling with their hate, reason cannot go there. Instead they will reinforce a variation of fake news, to add flies to the ointment, so as to maintain a hate based conclusion.

When the left became feminized, it became too emotional and lost its ability for critical thinking. This was by design since their leaders knew logic does not work properly with emotions. The result is a personality type who is easy to program using lies and propaganda. All that is now needed is to reinforce the feelings du jour, with propaganda and fake news; bad data that appears to add up to the feelings. They will not question any data that seems to reinforce their feelings. Sometimes it easier to explain something by showing what not to do and/or what it is not.

Mr Spock is a poster child for logic since he shuts off his emotions before analyzing a situation with logic. One does not try to steer logic, but rather lets logic go were it will. Then you accept the result even if you don't like it.

Overall, a well thought out post.

A big problem is that many of these people don't understand what Logic actually is or how it works. They don't understand that Logic is a closed functional system defined by its axioms, which gives it the power of proof (in which proof is an extension of those foundational axioms), likewise with how Mathematics works.

Many of these people, through the problems you described, have lost all understanding of what Philosophy is and the power of Philosophy. They have largely lost their ability to critically think and reason for themselves. They need some arbitrarily selected website, book, media source, "expert", etc. etc. to tell them how to think/reason, instead of actively thinking/reasoning for themselves through use of Philosophy... They regularly use terms of which they either have no idea of what they mean, or else they re-define terms to fit their twisted agendas... The words racism and bigotry come to mind here. These words are really just two specific Compositional Error Fallacies (errors of logic), but those words have been twisted in meaning (and have even sadly become complete buzzwords for many people) and it's truly sad to see such depravity of thought...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Just a fact

That's not what a fact is...

A fact is shorthand predicate accepted by all parties (or, in other words, an assumed predicate)... A fact doesn't even have to be true in order to be a fact. Facts are meant to speed up conversation.

Angel and I don't have to argue over the existence of the Christian God because we both work under the assumption that God's existence is truth. For Angel and I, "God exists" is a fact rather than an argument.

That's what a fact is and how it works...
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

That's not what a fact is...

A fact is shorthand predicate accepted by all parties (or, in other words, an assumed predicate)... A fact doesn't even have to be true in order to be a fact. Facts are meant to speed up conversation.

Angel and I don't have to argue over the existence of the Christian God because we both work under the assumption that God's existence is truth. For Angel and I, "God exists" is a fact rather than an argument.

That's what a fact is and how it works...

fact ( fakt) : something that is 'known' or 'proved' to be true. Can you and/or Angel 'prove' 'God exists' to be a 'factual' claim ?
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

fact ( fakt) : something that is 'known' or 'proved' to be true. Can you and/or Angel 'prove' 'God exists' to be a 'factual' claim ?

Angel and gfm make up their own definitions to words.
 
Re: Logic 101: How To Properly Reason

Angel and gfm make up their own definitions to words.
Get with it, man! You've posted a dozen posts in this thread and not one is on point. All you post is personal grousing about me or gfm. If your such an expert on logic, let's hear you say something intelligible about logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom