• 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!

single or multiple

One view or multiple views

  • Total voters
    10
Slartibartfast

Slartibartfast

Jesus loves you.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
71,967
Reaction score
58,547
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
single or multiple views

One of the reasons I believe that multiple (and sometimes competing) viewpoints can be valid is that I do not view logic and reason as deterministic (meaning that is only one possible outcome for a given set of axioms and reasoning to support a conclusion).

This can be demonstrated in math with the equation of √9=±3. Even in something as concrete as math, there can be more than result from a process of logic or reason. Math and logical reason, in many ways being very similar can also yield multiple results from the same process.

What is your view, is there only one valid view or are there multiple valid views?
 
Last edited:
Your example is good, but if I remember my math correctly (I always hated memorizing the principles and laws) but you arrive at the mathematical answer using the same principle. I suppose you can apply one principle in several valid ways, which is partially what you're saying, but I don't think that multiple view points necessarily are valid. If nothing else, there is usually one more valid (subjective or not) view point.

That was a convoluted way of saying sometimes there are multiple valid views.
 
repeter said:
Your example is good, but if I remember my math correctly (I always hated memorizing the principles and laws) but you arrive at the mathematical answer using the same principle. I suppose you can apply one principle in several valid ways, which is partially what you're saying, but I don't think that multiple view points necessarily are valid. If nothing else, there is usually one more valid (subjective or not) view point.

That was a convoluted way of saying sometimes there are multiple valid views.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't contend that the result of true/factual axioms and sound logic is always true, meaning that just because there are multiple valid conclusions, does not mean that those conclusions are true. However, I do think it is entirely possible that there can be more than one result conclusion that is true and those conclusions do not have to agree with each other, yet they can still be true.

After proof reading, I almost want to make that comment into a flow chart, it would make more sense that way I think.
 
megaprogman said:
Well, I don't contend that the result of true/factual axioms and sound logic is always true, meaning that just because there are multiple valid conclusions, does not mean that those conclusions are true. However, I do think it is entirely possible that there can be more than one result conclusion that is true and those conclusions do not have to agree with each other, yet they can still be true.

After proof reading, I almost want to make that comment into a flow chart, it would make more sense that way I think.
Click to expand...

I see your point. Based on that, I would agree that multiple view points can be correct. Not that this is always true , but that it can be true.
 
Multiple viewpoints can certainly be valid, particularly when it comes to political discussion because perspective is a huge player in this arena. But that being said, just having a different viewpoint in and of itself doesn't qualify it as valid. I mean you can't just lie, and then have it count as equal to something that is true. There has to be a line where we can accept different points of view as valid, so long as they are backed by something more than just idealism and emotive responses to the topic at hand.
 
Just for clarification. An example of a invalid conclusion based on good logic and a good starting point is the result of 1 divided by 3. The answer comes out to an infinite .3333333333 however, this answer is not the real result of that equation, which cannot be expressed.

Also, I am using math because its easy to demonstrate my points, in case anyone is curious. However, math is similar to any logic system in that it follows a set of validated rules.

WI Crippler said:
Multiple viewpoints can certainly be valid, particularly when it comes to political discussion because perspective is a huge player in this arena. But that being said, just having a different viewpoint in and of itself doesn't qualify it as valid. I mean you can't just lie, and then have it count as equal to something that is true. There has to be a line where we can accept different points of view as valid, so long as they are backed by something more than just idealism and emotive responses to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. And this also sheds light onto things like constitutional interpretation and the basis of political philosophies. However, it is this simple observation one can make using math about the nature of truth and information that leads me to the conclusion that is a huge variety of subjects that can be interpreted to some degree. However you are right, we must adhere to truth (in the sense of validating our logic against the real world) whenever possible.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Just for clarification. An example of a invalid conclusion based on good logic and a good starting point is the result of 1 divided by 3. The answer comes out to an infinite .3333333333 however, this answer is not the real result of that equation, which cannot be expressed.

Also, I am using math because its easy to demonstrate my points, in case anyone is curious. However, math is similar to any logic system in that it follows a set of validated rules.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are using a logic system to talk about political viewpoints. That's whats got everybody confused.:2razz:
 
WI Crippler said:
Yes, but you are using a logic system to talk about political viewpoints. That's whats got everybody confused.:2razz:
Click to expand...

Those who get it will get it ;)

The rest will hack away in their bedazzlement and lack of understanding :)
 
megaprogman said:
Those who get it will get it ;)

The rest will hack away in their bedazzlement and lack of understanding :)
Click to expand...

*sees the word "math"*

:shock:

*hacks away in bedazzlement and lack of understanding*






;)
 
The √-1 = i. Does this constitute many referring to one, or one referring to many?
 
Re: single or multiple views

megaprogman said:
One of the reasons I believe that multiple (and sometimes competing) viewpoints can be valid is that I do not view logic and reason as deterministic (meaning that is only one possible outcome for a given set of axioms and reasoning to support a conclusion).

This can be demonstrated in math with the equation of √9=±3. Even in something as concrete as math, there can be more than result from a process of logic or reason. Math and logical reason, in many ways being very similar can also yield multiple results from the same process.

What is your view, is there only one valid view or are there multiple valid views?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can analogise viewpoints to math unless the viewpoints are boiled down into rote logical operations in which multiple answers are possible or whoddidywhatamajig. Most viewpoints are never whittled down or honed to that extent and especially not in common debate.
 
Re: single or multiple views

SE102 said:
I'm not sure you can analogise viewpoints to math unless the viewpoints are boiled down into rote logical operations in which multiple answers are possible or whoddidywhatamajig. Most viewpoints are never whittled down or honed to that extent and especially not in common debate.
Click to expand...

If its less than logic, than precision goes down and that should increase the occurance and validity of the idea of multiple viewpoints.

The reason I used math was 1. everyone should understand the simple equation so it provides a useful example 2. People tend to trust simple math which makes the example more valid and 3. There is no room for opinion and insufficient information. (we all know what 9 is). The idea is even within a system that allows no room for interpretation, if such a point can be shown to be true, its simply that much more valid in a typical debate.
 
Last edited:
Re: single or multiple views

However, I do think it is entirely possible that there can be more than one result conclusion that is true and those conclusions do not have to agree with each other, yet they can still be true.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to whittle things down towards more specificity, this statement seems to just encompass statements that are not mutually exclusive...

or something.

Keep up with your logic speak, it both fascinates and intrigues me. :) Is this the type of thing that can work in binary or discrete logic, can we reduce this to a set of example statements perhaps? That'd be very helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom