Questioning Logic?

We discuss logics all around, including contradiction logics if one so wishes.

Moderator: Aetixintro

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 318 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Questioning Logic?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

I routinely question many of the so-called rules of logic. I don't believe a negative is inherently logically superior to a positive, even in a void. I can give you an example of me doing this.
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 11:15 pm
AgnosticBoy wrote: Mon Dec 21, 2020 7:20 pmI won't go as far as saying that Trump would've found enough fraud to overturn the election had he been successful with getting both manual recounts with added oversight, but the main point is had there been fraud, then it would've likely been caught under those conditions (recounts w/ added oversight). But as it stands, that wasn't done, and therefore I can't claim that this election had no fraud nor errors, and without knowing that, I can't claim that elections are "fair".
This is a perfect example of why I tend to reject the atheist mantra that negative claims are automatically superior to positive ones.

"The election was fair." Well, that certainly seems like a positive claim, ne?

"There was some sort of fraud or cheating." Oh. Well. This seems like a positive claim, too.

Yet these are logically contradictory premises. One must be true and the other must be false.

Which claim is positive and which claim is negative is often a matter of phraseology and there's not a clear, logical answer.
So yes, I question this supposed rule that a negative is automatically better than a positive.

I also question whether ad hominem is a fallacy. I lean toward it's not one.

Why don't more people do this? If we treat logic like a religion aren't we as bad as the other guys? Not just as bad, but worse, because I don't think religious people are getting a fair shake here, and this is the bit that bothers me.

Too many religious people have simply accepted that logic-philes (logophiles actually means you like words) get to set up the board and determine how the pieces move, and who gets the first one. We say, oh, black gets the first move, and then we always give ourselves black.

Now see here: We have rigged the game. We have rigged the game by forcing them to play on our board when we're just as religious as they are if not more. If this was not the case, more people would be questioning these rules.

I still don't believe in God and I still do believe in logic but this is why I want a bloody fair fight, for crying out loud!!!

The religiosos ought to have kicked over this board long ago, but they were tricked into thinking the board was fair. It wasn't. So here; I'll do it for you: You can bloody well question these supposed rules. Any of them. Especially anything informal. Question it. All of it. You're allowed. Encouraged.

*kick*

Kylie
Student
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #21

Post by Kylie »

Purple Knight wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:46 am
Kylie wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:13 amIn fact, I think I will indeed go and start a poll. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38270
I think that's a great idea, but to be honest I would prefer a poll that more generally samples the population.

I expect to get at least some agreement on this forum, and most will choose that they don't believe in ghosts but evidence would change their minds.

I also think it would be a fairer poll if it said:

1) Ghosts do not exist.
2) Ghosts do exist.
3) Ghosts might exist.

Simply because everyone will almost always say that evidence would change their minds even if it wouldn't.
So you are changing you tune now?

Now you are saying that most people are happy to re-evaluate their beliefs, but earlier, you said, "Because most people are active disbelievers in things that haven't been proven. The statement there are no such things as ghosts expresses a positive claim that ghosts do not exist. I would wager that if you ran a poll, the vast majority of people would agree with that statement."

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 318 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #22

Post by Purple Knight »

Kylie wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:40 pmSo you are changing you tune now?

Now you are saying that most people are happy to re-evaluate their beliefs,
No, I say just the opposite. Most people won't reevaluate and will double down instead. Of course, they'll say they'll reevaluate, but I don't think they will.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... -our-minds
“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... acts-fail/
In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... nd/519093/
facts alone can’t fight false beliefs

What I will say is that I could be wrong in applying this to this particular forum. It might be that it just feels that way because 1) I know this information and 2) the religious are outnumbered here, so it feels like they're being bullied, which I admit could trigger me to think the deck is stacked against them when it might not be.

Kylie
Student
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:19 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #23

Post by Kylie »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Apr 27, 2021 1:51 pm
Kylie wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 9:40 pmSo you are changing you tune now?

Now you are saying that most people are happy to re-evaluate their beliefs,
No, I say just the opposite. Most people won't reevaluate and will double down instead. Of course, they'll say they'll reevaluate, but I don't think they will.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017 ... -our-minds
“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... acts-fail/
In fact, people seem to double down on their beliefs in the teeth of overwhelming evidence against them.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... nd/519093/
facts alone can’t fight false beliefs

What I will say is that I could be wrong in applying this to this particular forum. It might be that it just feels that way because 1) I know this information and 2) the religious are outnumbered here, so it feels like they're being bullied, which I admit could trigger me to think the deck is stacked against them when it might not be.
I would try to convince you that I would be happy to change my mind when presented with sufficient evidence, but since you've essentially admitted that you won't change your mind when presented with evidence, I think I won't waste my time.

TRANSPONDER
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #24

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Interesting posts. I've come across a number of arguments about logic, particularly in connection with religious apologetics.

'Why is an unproven disbelief better (logically) than an unproven belief?' (this was raised on the idea that a negative is logically better than a positive).

'Aren't the rules of logic just a human invention?''

'People aren't going to change their minds, whatever the argument'.

The first thing is trying to say what is obviously true. In connection with what one knows or can know, one has to he honest about it or what's the point? Only to maintain self - delusion. An obviously false logical position will lose support from anyone watching the discussion. And I have found that that's the aim, rather than getting the other person to change their mind.

So the classic analogy or mind experiment is the closed box. It is claimed there is an apple in it. We don't know whether there is or there isn't, so the true knowledge position is 'We don't know - not until we look inside'. If someone makes a claim 'There is an apple inside' the logic is that they have to give a reason why they think so. 'I just believe there is' obviously has no logical or evidential force.

The 'agnostic' (I don't know whether there is an apple inside or not') does Not have the burden of proof and their 'don't know is equally true, honest and logically sound.

Is this ok so far before we get onto actual claims, the natural validity of logic and what use there is argument?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 1328
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 318 times
Been thanked: 176 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #25

Post by Purple Knight »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:20 am"Aren't the rules of informal logic just a human invention?''
In this topic I'm making the blue insert as a caveat. I don't mean to attack formal logic because I don't want to deal with the consequences of that in this thread, and additionally I think it's a big fat bridge to nowhere.

I am questioning who gets to say which forms of evidence in an inductive argument are simply out of bounds because reasons. I absolutely am saying that these informal fallacies are just human inventions, possibly with no basis beyond somebody or sombodies thought it was a good idea. I don't think ad hominem should be a fallacy. I don't see why good evidence should be discarded just because somebody says so, and they say so because it happens to be a personal attack.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon May 03, 2021 11:20 amSo the classic analogy or mind experiment is the closed box. It is claimed there is an apple in it. We don't know whether there is or there isn't, so the true knowledge position is 'We don't know - not until we look inside'. If someone makes a claim 'There is an apple inside' the logic is that they have to give a reason why they think so. 'I just believe there is' obviously has no logical or evidential force.

The 'agnostic' (I don't know whether there is an apple inside or not') does Not have the burden of proof and their 'don't know is equally true, honest and logically sound.

Is this ok so far before we get onto actual claims, the natural validity of logic and what use there is argument?
I'm not absolutely positive what you mean by "I don't know" not having the burden of proof. The agnostic position (not having an opinion one way or the other) to my mind can't have the burden of proof because it is not a claim. It claims nothing is true; it claims nothing is false. The burden of proof is a way we weigh one claim against another, usually contrary claim.

In the example, an infinite number of things that aren't apples could be in the box, but so to could any of those things and an apple, or an infinite number of possible apples.

TRANSPONDER
Student
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #26

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Thanks for the response. In fact it points to a factor that earlier posts seems to be swimming around - the negative or positive claim. Which it appeared was getting confused with the better supported (and therefore default) claim.

Take the example of the election. Given a history of fair and well -administered elections, the claim that it was fair is really the default. The burden of proof falls on the one claiming that wasn't. And the 'negative' claim seems to fall into both 'negative' as in challenging the preferred -default position of belief (it was fair) And saying 'No' it was not.

One could reverse that by saying 'The election was not unfair' and the challenge of the default says 'Yes, it was'. So still a hegative claim in challenging the default but it Sounds positive as it uses the word 'yes'.

I'd say that latter is not a sound guide to positives and negatives, but it does depend on the circumstances.

To relate to forum -topic an argument i repeatedly had on my previous forum (with the same person) was the default position of natural materialism. The evidence (unless we are science -deniers) is that the world works in ways we understand and no god is necessary to make the world work. Thus natural processes is the default and 'no evidence for a god involved there' is the default and 'positive' position and the one challenging that is really negating that default position of a natural earth with natural processes. They are making the negative (negating) claim even if they say 'Yes - a god is involved'. And in challenging the default (established) position - just as in claiming that a (historically usually) fair election was not fair, they have the burden of proof.

It is amazing how regularly the Theist side insist that God is the default and atheists have to disprove it. That is is not the logic of the default.

The logic is the box. It could contain an apple or something else, or nothing. 'Don't know' is the true, honest and logically sound response (agnostic about the apple -claim). Of course an apple is quite possible but the claim that it is an apple (without any evidence but the claim) requires 'I don't believe you' as the logically mandated non -belief response, based on not knowing (agnosticism) about what is in the box. Obviously to say 'I believe there is no apple' (a logically untenable claim) is not at all the same claim, though Theists will often say that it is.

However is a claim that the box contains an elephant or dragon is grounds for rejecting the claim of grounds of improbability, and the materialist default (no sign of a god where one would expect it) is the secularist basis that puts the burden of proof onto the one making the god -claim. And the request for convincing evidence is not (honestly) to be depicted as a positive claim that a god does not exist.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 8065
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 545 times
Contact:

Re: Questioning Logic?

Post #27

Post by William »

For me - logic has to help explain things as best as they can be.
The advantage in this universe is that science gets to examine what can be examined, but when it comes to theist beliefs, [principally in the ideas of Creator(s) and Afterlife] - that there is no thing to see in the box is really the logical way in which to analogize theism [theist beliefs].

Placing any thing into the box, is falsifying the 'problem' of theism.

Arguing scientific principles to defend this falsifying, is simply a strawman argument.

First - remove the 'thing' from the box...then throw the box away.

If there is an afterlife next phase experience, apples in boxes won't be helpful to you...unless you go to the Realm of Apples and try to bribe the gatekeeper to let you in...point being, one will be ill prepared because one has been basing one's argument on faith that it won't be the case...faith appears to accompany falsification like a shadow accompanies any thing a light is shone onto.

One cannot shine a light on The Creator. Indeed, one might experience a next phase reality so preparation isn't unwise...not saying that one will "see God" just saying one might not disappear from the face of life forevermore...

And if indeed there is a Creator of this - our present universe, then wonder of wonders!

Anyhoo...this isn't getting my dishes done...

Image

Post Reply