Logic for idiots

[Marshalscienceguy]

How do you explain logic to people and why something cant be? For example there is the argument that if you cant give me the correct answer right now than what I say is not true.

 

Such as they will give you a fallacious argument and say that its true and you say everything wrong with the statement and why its untrue. However you cant give them the answer to the question you just can explain why the assertion in itself is flawed so the idea that you cant give them the correct answer means that their idea(fallacious) is better than your idea that its flawed(Logical).

 

This is a Dog

 

No this is not a dog

 

Yes it is a dog

 

It can not be a dog since a dog is a mammal and this is a reptile

 

So what is this creature?

 

I am not sure but I know its not a mammal because of A, B, C

 

Well since you can not prove what creature it is it must be a dog

 

but a dog is a mammal and this is a reptile

 

No its not its a dog since you cant tell me what animal it is

 

But a dog is not a reptile and this is clearly a reptile

 

No its a dog until you prove what animal it is

 

The fact its not a dog should be proven already however they discount that since they say if its not a dog you have to prove what it is even when your statements only proves its not a dog.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Marshalscienceguy

[Phi for All]

How do you explain logic to people and why something cant be?

 

Definitely not like this. It's confusing and jumbled.

 

Most people who don't work with maths have a misunderstanding of what logic is. These days, far too many people treat logic as "this makes sense to me". But common sense fails us often. It seems logical that spacecraft entering our atmosphere should be aerodynamically designed to cut right through the air in the most efficient manner, but the opposite is true. Blunt designed modules and capsules provide better heat shielding.

 

You should read up on critical thinking instead of logic. That's really what you're talking about here.

[Marshalscienceguy]

 

Definitely not like this. It's confusing and jumbled.

 

Most people who don't work with maths have a misunderstanding of what logic is. These days, far too many people treat logic as "this makes sense to me". But common sense fails us often. It seems logical that spacecraft entering our atmosphere should be aerodynamically designed to cut right through the air in the most efficient manner, but the opposite is true. Blunt designed modules and capsules provide better heat shielding.

 

You should read up on critical thinking instead of logic. That's really what you're talking about here.

 

So this person lacks critical thinking skills?

Edited January 12, 2015 by Marshalscienceguy

[Phi for All]

 

So this person lacks critical thinking skills?

 

That's a good way to put it.

 

 

you say everything wrong with the statement and why its untrue. However you cant give them the answer to the question you just can explain why the assertion in itself is flawed

 

We see this a lot in the Speculations section. People come in with ideas all the time that have some basic flaw, so without giving them an answer about their idea being wrong or right, we say it's trivially dismissed because they made this error here, and then based the rest of their idea on that. They still want an answer, and we have to tell them they need to fix what's wrong before we could even read the rest of it.

[Mr. Laymen]

We see this a lot in the Speculations section. People come in with ideas all the time that have some basic flaw, so without giving them an answer about their idea being wrong or right, we say it's trivially dismissed because they made this error here, and then based the rest of their idea on that. They still want an answer, and we have to tell them they need to fix what's wrong before we could even read the rest of it.

 

Why would you respond to input on this forum like that, instead of just talking through any miss-communications as would generally occur in casual conversation between friends or family?

[Strange]

 

Why would you respond to input on this forum like that, instead of just talking through any miss-communications as would generally occur in casual conversation between friends or family?

 

Wait until you try explaining to someone in Speculations why they are wrong, how they are failing to communicate their idea clearly, and that they need supporting evidence.

 

They will almost certainly respond by telling you that they are right, you are wrong, and it is your fault you can't understand.

[Greg H.]

 

Definitely not like this. It's confusing and jumbled.

 

Most people who don't work with maths have a misunderstanding of what logic is. These days, far too many people treat logic as "this makes sense to me". But common sense fails us often. It seems logical that spacecraft entering our atmosphere should be aerodynamically designed to cut right through the air in the most efficient manner, but the opposite is true. Blunt designed modules and capsules provide better heat shielding.

 

You should read up on critical thinking instead of logic. That's really what you're talking about here.

The problem is critical thinking skills are not as highly valued by the education system (at least here) as the ability to memorize random peices of information long enough to regurgitate them on a test.

 

The most important question I was ever asked as a child was "Why?" because it forced me to actually use that 3 pound lump of flesh inside my skull. (It also helped that my father was never satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer.)

Edited March 24, 2015 by Greg H.

[Gees]

Marshalscienceguy;

 

Please consider:

 

How do you explain logic to people and why something cant be? For example there is the argument that if you cant give me the correct answer right now than what I say is not true.

 

Such as they will give you a fallacious argument and say that its true and you say everything wrong with the statement and why its untrue. However you cant give them the answer to the question you just can explain why the assertion in itself is flawed so the idea that you cant give them the correct answer means that their idea(fallacious) is better than your idea that its flawed(Logical).

 

This is a Dog

 

No this is not a dog

 

Yes it is a dog

 

It can not be a dog since a dog is a mammal and this is a reptile

 

So what is this creature?

 

<snip>

 

The fact its not a dog should be proven already however they discount that since they say if its not a dog you have to prove what it is even when your statements only proves its not a dog.

 

"So what is this creature?" That is a question that was asked at the end of the 1700's. Science had proof that it did not exist, knew that it was a hoax, and one scientist even tried to separate the parts in order to prove the hoax. But flying in the face of all known proof and evidence, the platypus does in fact exist. It is a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal that resembles a beaver, has webbed feet and a bill reminiscent of a duck, and is also venomous -- so do we throw snake in also? (chuckle) Or are there other venomous mammals? I have no idea.

 

Your OP is a very good example of what happens when "science guys" play in a philosophy forum. Science deals with "knowns" and proofs and right/wrong -- philosophy does not. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we know it -- or what is real and true. This means that philosophy studies the "unknowns" to see what can be learned and known about them.

 

Consider that philosophy is an exploratory study. So imagine two explorers sitting in the jungle arguing about which path is right or wrong to the point where they just quit and do no exploring. They would accomplish nothing and end their exploration in complete frustration. It would be better to choose a path, even if it proves to be the wrong path, because walking that path will teach them something about that jungle. Philosophy is about setting parameters around an unknown to make it more known, so anything learned has value. Philosophy forums are where we go to share the small bits of information that we acquire, so that maybe, together, we can get a better understanding.

 

So in your above example, arguing about right and wrong is useless. It would be better to follow Socratic Questioning and ask, "Why do you think it is a dog?" When you get an answer to that question, then you can ask, "Do you have any evidence to support your idea?" If they have evidence, and can make a reasoned logical argument that supports their position, then it is philosophy and a discussion can ensue. If they have no evidence or they can not make a reasoned logical argument that connects the evidence, then it is pure speculation, imagination, and probably nonsense. Simple.

 

Unknowns can not be proven, because they are UNKNOWN. Unknowns can not be right or wrong, because they are UNKNOWN. When something becomes known, then it can be handed to science for testing and proofs.

 

On a personal note, I resent the hell out of it when people compare philosophy and speculations as if there is no difference. Speculations is NOT philosophy.

 

Gee

[Phi for All]

The problem is critical thinking skills are not as highly valued by the education system (at least here) as the ability to memorize random peices of information long enough to regurgitate them on a test.

 

And we end up with potentially rational people accepting whatever is fed to them, which leaves them woefully short on information on which to base informed decisions, so they use emotions instead. And that works out SO well....

 

On a personal note, I resent the hell out of it when people compare philosophy and speculations as if there is no difference. Speculations is NOT philosophy.

 

I know what you mean. I felt the same way when you described the difference between science and philosophy above. Philosophy is the study of what's real and true? Science is about proofs? I don't think you're listening when people talk here.

[Skeptic134]

Your OP is a very good example of what happens when "science guys" play in a philosophy forum. Science deals with "knowns" and proofs and right/wrong -- philosophy does not. Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we know it -- or what is real and true. This means that philosophy studies the "unknowns" to see what can be learned and known about them.

 

Considering that science is an extension of philosophy (natural philosophy) and adds to the rationale and logical base of philosophy the significance of empiricism, I think "science guys" should be more than capable of playing appropriately in a philosophy forum; the problem isn't with science, logic or rationality it's improper usage by specific individuals.

Edited March 24, 2015 by Skeptic134

[Gees]

Greg H;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

The problem is critical thinking skills are not as highly valued by the education system (at least here) as the ability to memorize random peices of information long enough to regurgitate them on a test.

 

The most important question I was ever asked as a child was "Why?" because it forced me to actually use that 3 pound lump of flesh inside my skull. (It also helped that my father was never satisfied with "I don't know" as an answer.)

 

I agree with you. Critical thinking is not highly valued in the education system, but I think there are reasons for this. If you analyze the public school system, I think you will find that the motivation for government is to produce children, who can read and write and have basic knowledge, for the cheapest possible price. This leads to overcrowding and assembly-line teaching. Then because we don't trust our teachers to be teaching, we test the children to ensure that they are receiving a proper education.

 

Children, who think, ask questions -- lots of questions. So a teacher, who must pass out information in order to validate themselves and the school, has no time to answer questions from 25 to 30 children. So although it would be nice to teach critical thinking skills, I am not sure that it is even feasible before the high school level in our present system.

 

These skills are usually taught in the home. Most people do not ask a child to think and do not want to know what a child thinks. Luckily, you and I both had parents, who cared enough to want to know.

 

 

Phi for All;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

And we end up with potentially rational people accepting whatever is fed to them, which leaves them woefully short on information on which to base informed decisions, so they use emotions instead. And that works out SO well....

 

It is my considered opinion that emotion is more real than thought, but a person has to know which they are using and how to use them. If people were just rational, like a computer, then they would spit out bad information just the same as a computer will when fed incorrect data.

 

I know what you mean. I felt the same way when you described the difference between science and philosophy above. Philosophy is the study of what's real and true? Science is about proofs?

 

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it. So what does that mean? Is all information knowledge? Is pretending knowledge? Is imagination knowledge? Are lies knowledge? No. Knowledge is not just information, it is information that is real and true. So when we study what we can know, we are studying knowledge, so we are studying what is real and true. Is this logical enough?

 

I do not know enough about science to argue the point with you, but I will state that if "proofs" are not relevant to science, then they should stop flinging that word about so much, as in the following quote:

 

The fact its not a dog should be proven already however they discount that since they say if its not a dog you have to prove what it is even when your statements only proves its not a dog.

 

I don't think you're listening when people talk here.

 

Well, I am listening now. Do you have something that you would like to explain?

 

Gee

[imatfaal]

...

 

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it. So what does that mean? Is all information knowledge? Is pretending knowledge? Is imagination knowledge? Are lies knowledge? No. Knowledge is not just information, it is information that is real and true. So when we study what we can know, we are studying knowledge, so we are studying what is real and true. Is this logical enough?

 

...

 

Gees - you are selling Philosophy short. The study of the nature, limitations, and bases of knowledge is epistemology - one of five (?) major branches of Philosophy. Classically we can consider Philosophy as Epistemology, Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics, and Aesthetics - all are interwoven but it would be reductionism to the extreme to claim that all were Epistemological

[Gees]

Imatfaal;

 

Please consider my following thoughts.

 

Gees - you are selling Philosophy short. The study of the nature, limitations, and bases of knowledge is epistemology - one of five (?) major branches of Philosophy. Classically we can consider Philosophy as Epistemology, Logic, Ethics, Metaphysics, and Aesthetics - all are interwoven but it would be reductionism to the extreme to claim that all were Epistemological

 

Your above quoted statements surprised me, as I could not understand how you could take the intention that I had when making my statements, and interpret it exactly backward. Not a little off, but exactly backward. How could stating that philosophy is the source of all true knowledge be "selling Philosophy short"? This is illogical. Where did I claim that philosophy was ONLY Epistemological? I didn't. That was your interpretation of my words and your assumption. I do not honestly believe that you are illogical, nor do I believe that you intentionally distorted my meaning, so what happened?

 

In order to solve this puzzle, I centered on the word "reductionism" and went to Wiki to study it. Reductionism has always seemed nonsensical to me, but I did not really understand it. I have a better understanding now, and still see it as nonsensical. Reductionism seems to take the whole of a thing and try to reduce it, or it's essence, to a small simple part. Like you thought that I was trying to reduce philosophy to simply a study of knowledge. Nonsense. Another thing that I learned about reductionism is that it's opposite is holism. At that point, things started to make more sense to me because I am a holistic thinker, so it is not surprising that I find reductionism nonsensical.

 

This is turning out to be good subject matter for this thread. When discussing something with another person, and their response seems to be illogical, does that mean that they are not logical, or could there be another reason? It is possible that they do not have enough information to come to a logical conclusion, but it is just as possible that they are putting the information together in a different way, or from a different perspective. In this case, a person would have to listen carefully and probably ask questions in order to gain understanding of the other person's meaning and logic.

 

A few years ago, in a different science forum, a knowledgeable person told me that I was a holistic thinker. I had no idea what that meant, so I looked it up and discovered that someone had studied how my mind works and written it down. It was very enlightening and explained the flaws and values in my type of thinking. After that, I found a few different sites that catagorized up to ten different types of thinking. So there are lots of different ways that we interpret information, and in their own way, each can be logical.

 

Generally speaking, a holistic thinker, or systems thinker, sees things from a whole perspective and understands things in relation to other things. One could even say that a holistic thinker understands the relationship between things better than they understand the things in themselves. Holistic thinkers are historically associated with philosophy and religion because they understand cycles and tend to understand the motion of a cycle. But this does not preclude them from being scientists. The more I learn about Einstein, a great scientist, the more I am convinced that he was a holistic thinker. He saw the wholeness of the Universe and understood the relationship between time and space, then he proved what he saw with math. This is typical of holistic thinking, but the rest of us see much smaller things with our much smaller minds. (chuckle)

 

In order to find the "wholeness" of anything, one needs to trace it to it's roots, it's source, so when I stated that philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it, I was talking about the root of knowledge. Philosophy is the parent of all studies. I don't see how this is "selling Philosophy short". When I am working on a problem, I will often trace the assumed knowledge back until I can find the place where the knowledge was assumed, or maybe corrupted, then I bring that forward and check it in relation to other things to ensure that it remains true. I know of no limits of subject matter for this process. There is no limit of subject matter for philosophy.

 

So I think that what happened, is that you do not think like I do, so you misinterpreted my meaning.

 

All branches of philosophy, all branches of science, all branches of religion relate back to the study of knowledge, because without knowledge none of these studies could exist. If you disagree, then please tell me which of the branches in science or philosophy could exist without knowledge. It would be fun reading.

 

Gee

[imatfaal]

...

Where did I claim that philosophy was ONLY Epistemological? I didn't.

...

 

...

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it.

...

 

Perhaps that is not what you meant - but it is what you wrote.

 

 

All branches of philosophy, all branches of science, all branches of religion relate back to the study of knowledge, because without knowledge none of these studies could exist. If you disagree, then please tell me which of the branches in science or philosophy could exist without knowledge. It would be fun reading.

 

A study of knowledge is not a prerequisite for the use of knowledge. There is no need for any epistemological themes in a discourse on socio-political ethics, a debate on the nature of time, an article on the beauty of a rose, or a forum discussion on the law of noncontradictions.

[Gees]

Imatfaal;

 

I don't know why I am trying so hard to explain this, as we have never been able to have a productive discussion; nonetheless, I will try again.

 

Perhaps that is not what you meant - but it is what you wrote.

 

Yes. That is what I wrote, philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true. But you did not understand what I wrote, so let's try a different tact.

 

What defines a tree as a tree? It is not the leaves because pine trees do not have leaves and other plants do have leaves. It can not be the height because I have seen bushes that can grow taller than some trees. It can not be the trunk because other plants have the same shape of a "trunk" that branches out. And it can not be the bark because a Giant Cardon is a tree, but is also a cactus without bark. A Saguaro is described as "tree-like" . . . . but not a tree?

 

When I was in Ireland, I saw something that was called a "Monkey Tree" (probably not the formal name). It was very old, the trunk being 2 to 3 feet in diameter, and it was 30 to 40 feet tall. From a distance, it could be interpreted as some kind of Elm tree, but upon closer inspection, I found that it did not have leaves, nor did it have needles. What it had at the ends of it's branches was something that looked like cactus, but without the pointy things, it was smooth. Actually, the leaves (?) looked a great deal like the growths that grow out of Chicks and Hens cactus when they flower. But it was a tree. So what is the essence, the root definition, that makes one plant a tree and another not a tree?

 

That is what I searched for, the root definition that defined philosophy. Remember that I am a holistic thinker, so I define things in relation to other things. There are three core disciplines, Philosophy, Science, and Religion.

 

Religion is the study of emotion. Yes, I know that many people will disagree with this, but then few people actually study emotion, so many are clueless.

 

Science became a discipline in it's own right with the development of the scientific method. Science examines, experiments, and tests, to learn something's strengths and weaknesses, how it works, why it works, what it can and cannot do, etc. Science bases its findings on consistency and predictability, so it works mostly with "knowns". One can not find an "unknown" to be predictable or consistent.

 

Philosophy is the study of what we can know and how we can know it -- or what is real and true. Knowledge. Many people state that philosophy is the study of wisdom, but since wisdom is merely an advanced form of truth, this also fits within the above definition.

 

Have you ever wondered why the branches of Philosophy that you mentioned are all listed under the umbrella of Philosophy? Not science or religion?

 

A study of knowledge is not a prerequisite for the use of knowledge.

 

If you keep making statements like this, I am going to have to retract my statement about you not being illogical. This is like saying, "A study of math is not a prerequisite for the use of math."

 

Gee

[Mr. Laymen]

If I may interrupt with a question between Gees and Imatfaal.

 

I'm new to the forum and don't know much, but I like this forum cause I've learned a lot in just a couple days here.

 

Would it be fair at all to view science and philosophy as a pair of uniquely oriented functions, that together (as a single human endeavor) form a new general function? I'm not asserting anything, just wondering if any arguments could dissolve under the lens of a single more complex analogy.

 

Maybe this is already the case, or maybe what I'm saying doesn't actually make any sense?

[Gees]

Mr. Laymen;

 

Welcome to the forums. Please consider my following thoughts.

 

I'm new to the forum and don't know much, but I like this forum cause I've learned a lot in just a couple days here.

 

I have read many of your posts in the Philosophy forum, but wonder if you have learned very much about philosophy.

 

If you like to learn and like science, you will have a great time in the Science forums above. I know very little about science, but occasionally, I will look through a specific subject, and although I can not always follow the discussion, I was amazed to find that many of the members will take the time to explain science.

 

Just last week, I learned about dimensions, something that has always confused me. I have a much better understanding now and had to write a post in that thread to thank the helpful members.

 

Would it be fair at all to view science and philosophy as a pair of uniquely oriented functions, that together (as a single human endeavor) form a new general function?

 

Not sure that I would describe them as functions, mostly because they function so differently. They use different methodologies because their subject matter is so different. Philosophy is not going to be able to take "knowledge" and set it on a lab table to be measured and weighed for accuracy, so it must use a different method to find knowledge.

 

I generally refer to them as 'disciplines'. The reason for this is because without discipline, the methodologies do not work -- one can not be sloppy and still find facts and truth. Another difference is that science finds its facts as a result of testing and experimentation -- at the end -- but philosophy finds its truths by carefully considering its premises -- at the beginning. So they are very different, but both require strict discipline. More on this idea below.

 

It is true that they make a great team when working together.

 

I'm not asserting anything, just wondering if any arguments could dissolve under the lens of a single more complex analogy.

 

Your above statement makes it clear that you do not understand the methodology of philosophy. The methodology of philosophy is argument. It is not the "he said -- she said" kind of argument, or the "I'm right and you are wrong" kind of argument, nor is it really debate, as debate is more about winning than it is about finding truth. A philosophical argument is a well reasoned, logically consistent set of statements that expose truth.

 

To help you understand this concept, below are two examples, one from science and one from philosophy, that should show how a small seemingly innocent difference can corrupt the methodologies and thwart science or philosophy.

 

Science:

 

I watched a documentary, years ago, where a researcher was studying causes of cancer. She explained that she had been at this for years with some success, when all of a sudden almost all of her vials showed positive that they caused cancer. Knowing that this was very unlikely, she investigated and eventually discovered that the people who ordered her supplies had decided to use plastic vials rather than glass vials -- probably trying to save money.

 

The end result of the documentary was a recommendation to not use plastic containers in the microwave to process our food. It may have been around this same time that Rubbermaid and Tupperware took a downward spiral, although many manufacturers of plastic food containers now state that their products are "microwave safe". For myself, I went out and bought a full set of glass serving bowls and got another set for my Mother.

 

So sometimes a small or innocent change or reality can be overlooked and corrupt science. Discipline is always necessary and the consideration of all known possibilities is necessary.

 

Philosophy:

 

Probably the best known argument ever presented is Descartes Meditations -- also referred to as a treatise. I listened to Meditations on tape and thought I had never heard or read anything that compares to it. It was the most eloquent, well reasoned, well thought out, logically consistent argument that I had ever heard. If logic could be called poetry, then Descartes would be THE poet. It is just too damned bad that he was wrong.

 

Philosophy has been using the logical argument for centuries, and a great deal of our knowledge and truth came from this source, so how did Descartes mess up so badly? It is my opinion that he based one assumption on an incorrect interpretation. He assumed that the interpretation of "God" from religion was correct which, like the plastic vials above, corrupted his argument. In his time, study of the rational aspect of mind was just getting good, and no one really understood the sub/unconscious aspect of mind for many more centuries until Freud, Jung, and others started serious work on the sub/unconscious. So he could not know that "God" can not be known; "God" can only be interpreted because emotion can not be known -- only interpreted.

 

Philosophy can not test knowledge to see if it is valid at the conclusion of it's argument -- like science can test after it's experiments. So philosophy must use the beginning to validate it's truths and must ensure that it's premises are not based in assumption, interpretation, bias, imaginings, pretense, prejudice, etc. So we check our premises, make our argument, then wait for another philosopher to point out any mistakes.

 

So asking a philosopher to dismiss or dissolve the argument is very much like asking a scientist to remove all of that silly lab stuff that is cluttering the place up. So, no, it is not fair.

 

In my opinion.

 

Gee

[TheDivineFool]

First, the thread topic sounds like it's written specifically for people like me.

 

A lot of interesting stuff written. Thanks posters.

 

Let me offer an evolutionary perspective to the matter of idiots, morons, numskulls, fools, etc, etc.

 

You will surely agree to the maxim associated with evolution, "survival of the fittest". Of course "fittest" here is determined by contingency. I mean the dinsoaurs were physically very fit. Unfortunately, the comet or whatever that caused the extinction defined "fit" in a different way.

 

If what I said is true, the existence of idiots in our world indicates that nature gives them the pink slip of good health. Idiocy is not a survival disadvantage. In fact, if we go by numbers, they seem to be winning the evolutionary game.

 

What does that say about "logic" and "idiots"?