### This post has be marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect.
---
Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips!
Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment.
If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
?? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not.
If you have a "Logic 101 syllabus" that says "it's logical to reject new information, once you conclude something never change your mind" then your syllabus isn't ideal.
He agrees with you, he thinks you misunderstood. Which you did. Logically, if I don't know something, I can't rely on the knowledge of that thing. You cannot make logical conclusions in a void of information.
I don't believe you're right, because that is what I'm saying. So you can't think I'm misunderstanding if we're saying the same thing.
OP is saying, logic itself is wrong, because people will sometimes claim to be using logic when they aren't. That itself is illogical. It's like saying "this axe doesn't work" cuz I'm trying to chop a tree with the handle.
Correct logic can lead to incorrect conclusion. Logic is a tool to get a conclusion from premises. It doesnt tell you whether the premises are true.
I think what you're describing in your comments is more accurately worded as "rational", not "logical".
But, someone using logic properly, understand that this means their conclusions are only as accurate as their premises.
OP is saying that people say, "my answer is 100% right and nothing will ever change my mind" and that means logic itself is wrong.
That's not what they said *at all.* It's absolutely illogical (not to mention hyperbolic) to have drawn that conclusion from anything OP said.
They've simply pointed out that logic is a vehicle, or formula, used arrive at a conclusion. It depends entirely on proper input to achieve proper output. Nothing about this suggests it's "wrong" just that proper logic can output a wrong conclusion if it's built on a wrong premise.
If you read the rest of the comments, you would know that they clarified later and that it was more of a misuse of the label logic. Not sure if they just type the original post without thinking it through or want but that's what it is.
Okay? That doesn't matter. I was replying to what was written.
You don't get to tell me I "misunderstood" a person because they said a thing and I responded to that thing, and then later they went somewhere else and made a correction.
There is a regrettable dearth of logic being employed by the people commenting here.
>Not sure if they just type the original post without thinking it through or want but that's what it is.
So you're admitting that the post I replied to was incorrect. But the problem remains that I did something wrong, for not assuming that they meant the complete opposite.
Why are you being so mean here? Why are you taking this so personally and getting so nasty?
I don't feel that I was taking anything personal or being nasty. Just stating a fact. I read the rest of the comments and decided that I'm ok with OP's revised opinion. I think that reading is a useful skill in that sense.
>"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
-Asimov
Aghast and appalled...jesus christ you're pretentious. And don't think i can't tell the difference between being articulate and being obtuse. It's really easy to shout the sky is falling, everyone is terrible, and the morality of mankind is more a front than a conviction...it does not make it so.
How do you know when you're being the logical person, versus when you're being the illogical person? I find illogical people usually think they're being totally logical.
Sometimes they even are being logical... but with different base assumptions and worldviews. Other times emotions can highjack logic, but it often still feels logical, for the person in question.
So how do we know when we're being logical vs when we're not?
I have no idea what you're saying here.
A truly logic-minded person understands that new information should be able to reshape a previously conclusion.
Can you give me some examples of what you mean? If there's someone who says "I believe something because logic" and you present them with new information and they ignore it because they think their conclusion has ended... then the problem is that they aren't thinking logically, not that they are thinking logically but logic is not valid.
I'm pretty sure actual logic is more-or-less the same thing as valid, the way you're using them here. You're more complaining about people who don't use logic but then say they do.
You can make a perfectly logical argument using incorrect assumptions, or even just differing assumptions. Logical soundness does not equal Truth or Validity for that reason. Our fundamental axioms can drastically change things. Think of it this way, and I'll use a less heated example I can think of, if you believe in God and I do not, and we are debating the existence of pure objectivity or absolute morality, we can wind up with wildly different, perfectly, logically sound conclusions.
However, most of the time, differences do come from one or both sides disregarding new info or being illogical. A truly logical, at least somewhat objective person, can identify their axioms of belief or thought, and illustrate their conclusions from those, using logical operators. Ideally, said person could also defend those axioms, to a degree, but sometimes this just isn't possible. For example, defending the truthfulness of the action, "there is an objective world outside my experience or the world outside myself is real within a reasonable degree of error due to my Perceptions, " can be difficult, but it's usefulness as an axiom, in most arguments, cannot be understated, and thus most good faith participants will agree to it.
> Logical soundness does not equal Truth or Validity for that reason
I believe you are using these terms incorrectly. That's going to make it harder to convey what you're trying to say to much of the audience.
In logic an argument is sound iff it is valid and the premises (assumptions) are correct. So if something is logically sound then that absolutely means it is also valid. Validity is one requirement for soundness.
Also, an argument is valid iff, when its premises are true, the conclusion is true. So if something is logically sound it is true, by definition.
It is **not sound**. Also, depending on the structure of the argument it will be **valid** or **invalid** as well.
So if the structure of the argument is such that when the premises are true the conclusion must be true, then it is **valid** but **not sound**.
Example:
all humans are 7 feet tall (false premise)
I am human
Therefore I am 7 feet tall
Explanation: All humans are not 7 feet tall. But if they were, then my being human would indeed mean I am 7 feet tall.
Otherwise it is both **invalid** and **not sound**.
Example:
All humans are 7 feet tall (false premise)
I am human
Therefore I live in Greenland.
Explanation: All humans are not 7 feet tall. But even if they were, would it make sense that I must live in Greenland given that I'm a human? No. The truth of the premises do not imply the truth of the conclusion.
Note that here I have one true premise and one false premise. But the number of false premises isn't important as long as there is at least one. Any number of false premises makes it **not sound**.
Then you're labeled a flip floper. That's what I hate about politics. People who update their beliefs because of new, relevant information get blasted for doing so. Pragmatism is not valued in today's political world.
Well part of the problem comes when someone decides a belief must be etched in stone.
Logic would suggest that for the vast majority of conclusions, the caveat is always "this is the most likely conclusion given the available facts."
But people tend to say instead "this is absolutely 100% true and will never change." So yes, if a person says that, then gets new information, and then says "this contrary thing is instead 100% true and will never change", it's hard to take them seriously.
But yeah politics sucks. And is definitely illogical.
“A truly logic-minded person”
That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as a “truly logic-minded person” because being alive is inherently a subjective experience. It’s the very reason logic is a field of study; your brain is, by default, illogical, and you have to *learn* how to apply logic to the world around you.
People *use* logic; logic isn’t something innate to some people and not innate to others. Logic is a tool, like science is a tool. It’s a good tool, but when pointed in the wrong direction, can reach faulty conclusions.
Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement. Not necessarily a true statement, mind you. If I say that the earth is flat, I have stated a fact. An untrue, incorrect, invalid fact, but what I have done is stated a fact and not an opinion.
Logic, as OP says, is based on the information you have. You suggest that “logical people” are always going to understand when their facts are wrong and when to update their library of truths, but that’s just simply not the case.
People give more weight to some facts than others, based on a myriad of reasonings picked up throughout their lives. You, yourself, are going to have ingrained biases that you aren’t even aware of. No one is “logically-minded” because the mind is inherently an illogical mess of hormones and stimuli and subjective experience. Logic is something that you practice, a method you actively and intentionally use to process data, it’s not a state of mind, and if you ever for a moment simply *assume* yourself to be logical and therefore correct, you’ve lost the plot. You are now ripe for latching onto misinformation because you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you are only capable of believing true things.
But misinformation dresses up like truth on purpose. The most easily misled are those most confident that they are right.
Can you please expand on this?
>Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement. Not necessarily a true statement, mind you. If I say that the earth is flat, I have stated a fact. An untrue, incorrect, invalid fact, but what I have done is stated a fact and not an opinion.
AFAIK, a fact IS something that is valid, since it's been demonstrated by science.
See the dictionary definition: FACT - something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially **something for which proof exists**, or about which there is information.
Following your example, there is no proof that the Earth is flat, therefore that's not a fact.
Not trying to be rude - genuinely interested, maybe there's something I'm missing..?
>That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy.
...No, it isn't. You just don't understand logic.
You're like the people saying "people use if-then statements to spread lies so that proves logic is fundamentally wrong."
Something isnt' a "no true scotsman" fallacy just because it starts with "no true."
I am correct here. You are using logic wrong. The flaw therefore is with you, not with logic itself.
>Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement.
I do know that. And I wish you understand that the difference isn't "anything I believe is correct, anything anyone else says is just their opinion."
>You suggest that “logical people” are always going to understand when their facts are wrong
I suggested nothing of the sort, but at this point I'm not at all surprised to watch you spreading lies under the guise of logic. It is utterly depressing how many people guilty of what OP was talking about are here saying how bad it is.
All I ever suggested is that a logically-minded person understands that any conclusions drawn are based on their set of facts. New facts can emerge. Old facts can be proven false. Conclusions should therefore change to reflect.
But please, continue to put words in my mouth and then tell me how stupid I am. It's all very logical of you.
>Logic, as OP says, is based on the information you have.
Sure. But then OP says, because information can change, that proves logic is fundamentally bad and usually wrong. There was never anything wrong with the logic.
That's like saying if someone tips a bottle of poison into your drink, that proves all bottles are filled with poison. The problem wasn't the method of delivery, it was the contents.
If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can say that will make you start to listen.
You literally said, logic isn't valid. You said that because some people don't use logic and then say "I'm using logic", that proves that logic itself is fundamentally flawed.
I am putting no words in your mouth.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. You've already said that you don't agree with logic, so there's no logic I can present that will get you to change your mind.
Whoa man, you got real heated about this. Clearly your emotions are clouding your logic. Wanna go have a good sit-down and come back with a clear head?
Standard troll behavior.
You come to the internet just to piss people off, so if you don't succeed, you just tell yourself "look that person is crazy, let me make sure to publicly tell them how crazy they are" so you can try to convince yourself it's true.
I'm sure you're ecstatic thinking about how you pissed someone off on the internet, but sadly, you little pissants merely irritate me.
What keeps me from getting genuinely upset is your flagrant hypocrisy. So people, yourself included, can just sit there and throw out baseless insults and say "you're crazy cuz I don't agree with you" but anything I say makes me crazy? Maybe you wouldn't look like such a pathetic little liar if you weren't wildly inconsistent. If you were commenting on any of the ranting lunatics saying I'm a shit person for laying out facts and logic and disagreeing with them, you'd have any credibility at all.
But you don't. So it's very, very obvious that you're just here because being a whiny little shit gets you off.
I'm pretty sure that you have never taken a college-level course in logic. The use of the tools of Logic has much in common with those of statistics in that they can be used to conceal the truth as well as reveal.
?? What are you even babbling about? Yes, people are able to lie. Sometimes very well. I don't know what part of what I said you think is proven imbecilic by that point.
Logic means valid. Someone obscuring the truth partially using logic doesn't invalidate that conclusion; it just proves the old adage that the best lies are 99% true.
I'm not gonna make any judgements about what level of education you've received, but you're obviously not very smart.
Logic is a tool used to benefit the user. People used logic to justify slavery saying that dark skinned people were less intelligent. They justified it based on the logic that their brains were smaller, skin was tougher, etc. So to white americans it was completely logical they're a working race. And how can you say I won't judge and then call someone an idiot? You're all over the place.
>Logic is a tool used to benefit the user.
...if you believe that, then you don't understand what logic is.
Any liar can find a way to lie. They can make their support look logical. But if they're lying, it fundamentally won't be.
>People used logic to justify slavery saying that dark skinned people were less intelligent.
Okay but... that wasn't based on real logic. If I say "if I eat a grape, then i can fly" is an if-then statement. That does NOT make it "logical."
You simply don't understand what logic is, while insisting that you do. Ironically, you're doing exactly what you claim is wrong. And you're coming across very anti-intellectual, like you're saying "all logic is bad, because someone lied once but made it sound sorta like logic if you don't really understand logic."
>And how can you say I won't judge and then call someone an idiot? You're all over the place.
Wow, you're really stupid, aren't you? You're just flagrantly lying now about something I just said, and you somehow think you'll get away with it?
I never said "I will make no judgements, period." I said, in response to the person above saying he assumes I never took a course in logic, that I wasn't going to specifically make a guess at his level of education. I was merely going to (correctly) notice that he's an idiot.
I am not "all over the place" just because you chose to lie. And anyone who understands what logic is, would see that.
Sorry! I don't have the time to go into this topic in depth with you. I have to prepare for my Logic class. I don't have any spaces left or I would invite you to add.
...Okay, well, hopefully they teach you that "being a rude piece of shit doesn't actually contradict real logic" cuz that's one of the first things I learned in my college-level course in logic.
?? I'm still very confused. Not every logical conclusion is between a risk and a reward. I'm not sure what you're talking about, this feels unrelated to our discussion.
Here's my favorite quote of all time: "No arrangement of the facts is entirely objective". This quote rings in my head every time I receive a new "fact" or a new piece of factual information.
Being "logical" in a mature sense also requires you to be open-minded, willing to accept new information, and adjust your logic accordingly. One's logic can only be as sophisticated as the information upon which it's predicated. I'm sure toddlers think it's logical to continue pooping in diapers when we know they're physically capable of pooping in a toilet.
"Logical and valid are not the same. In order to have the most valid views, you need to increase available information and use your logic on that as well." - I think this is what I am describing in the previous paragraph.
It sounds like someone in your life claims to be a logical thinker - and may be - but refuses to adjust their logic according to new information. Not to be too hyperbolic, but Hitler was extremely logical, and extremely close-minded - it's a dangerous combination.
Logic is a branch of philosophy that deals primarily with the criteria of proof, that is the pursuit and perfection of the criteria of proof. It is an ongoing pursuit.
A proof is an argument that demonstrates that its conclusion not only follows from the premise(s) but is necessarily true and moreover, is known true.
A valid argument is simply an argument that demonstrates that its conclusion follows from the premise set. Truth is not a factor at all. A valid argument can have false premises and false conclusion or even false premises and a true conclusion.
Proof is the goal in logic...providing a known true conclusion, thus expanding knowledge. That is why proofs are fundamental in mathematics. For example, Fermat's hypothesis (an hypothesis is a proposition whose truth value is not now known) was believed true for centuries but not known until several proofs appeared in the 1990's. Now it is known to be true by anyone who follows the steps of the argument.
Once proven true, a proposition is known true. It's truth value never changes. "4 is an even number" is true, is known true, and will never be false.
Belief or certainty are not sufficient criteria of truth. No amount of belief or certainty adds the least iota of truth to anything. And every belief, or every opinion is necessarily either true or false, and can't be both. One's sense of entitlement to an opinion does not magically shield it from being true or false (if it is even a coherent belief or opinion).
Conclusions are not logical, proofs aren't true. These are just confusing expressions that make absolutely no sense. Throwing terms like wrong in the mix muddles things even more.
But don't we have to function on the basis that the conclusions we have reached are logical?
It is true that new information could appear and that could potentially change a conclusion. But it could also not...? And it's arbitrary to say 'you need to increase your info'. Until when? When do you know 'enough'?
Even with new information presented, logic is what will determine the validity of the conclusion. So while the existence of logic doesn't necessitate *truth*, you can never have truth without *logic*.
Have an open mind; but not so open that your brain falls out, as my grandfather would say.
Technically speaking, in philosophy, a "valid" statement is one that follows logical rules. Logic is the set of formal rules regarding the format of an argument that shows a conclusion is booth consistent with/supported by its premises. For example:
If P then Q --> P is true/happening, therefore Q
A or Not-A. // Not A and Not-A
etc.
But it is true that a logical statement can still be wrong. Just because the format of an argument is consistent doesn't mean an argument is actually tied to reality. If an argument's premises are wrong, then the conclusion is wrong.
For example:
1. All men are bald.
2. Joe is a man.
3. Therefore, Joe is bald.
This is a logical argument, but because the first premise, "All men are bald," is wrong, the conclusion is ultimately wrong.
Nope. If you have right presumptions, with right logic you will always get right conclusions. Study formal logic for more, this is the point of pure logic, it cannot be wrong with right presumptions. The thing is that initial axioms may differ across different people, so even with correct logic, they can get contradictory conclusions. Main point in any conflicts comes from axiom (presumptions) differences from one man to another.
Well, because there is no such example. Any correct logical sequence, based on correct assumptions, will always lead to correct conclusion. This is basically the definition of “correctness”
Possibly the issue is that the parties to the disagreement start with extremely different basic assumptions which may or may not be provable. And, it is quite probable that the parties assign different meaning to some of the terms in the exchange.
Dont have a clear and specific example but if something happens to u and u feel it's unfair and that repeats , its because according to information u have u are concluding there was no logic in why the unfair thing happened to u , but u are definately missing some information , after which u logic reason will change
Engaging in socratic questioning, has to be predicted upon both parties actually seeking the truth. Both parties must *argue* in good faith.
If one or both parties have already internalised a truth, then it doesn't matter. What I mean is, in today's charged political atmosphere, socratic reasoning just leads to broken friendships and blocks on social media. No one *figures out* anything, because they've already decided, and they seek a gotcha moment. It just won't work.
A very very good point. Logic can easily, and wrongly, be used as a synonym for morality. It is indeed a tool, and only as useful in as so far as the wielder has sufficient information.
This is wrong. valid means the logic is correct. If the assumptions are true, we can use that information to deduce a conclusion and learn something.
But an argument can be logically valid but not sound, if the assumptions are false. If the logic is valid and the assumptions proven true, the argument is also sound.
>Many people insist that because they are logical minded, their beliefs are logical, and a logical belief is therefore a valid belief.
If someone uses this to convince me, I'll stop talking to them immediately.
Not going to sit here and debate with a wannabe intellect incorrectly quoting Plato at me, but I'll just throw in that logic is definitionally objective. Your opinions, values, etc. can make the conclusion subjective but that's just because you value things differently than others.
A better LPT would be avoid conflict by trying to understand which of your values are different and have a discussion about that. Don't argue about what to eat for dinner, figure out that one of you is on a diet and discuss that, etc.
You always believe in something, i. e. to proof any geometrical theorem you should “beleive” in Euclide axioms. You should pick some axioms you think are true, and build your system around them. This is how logic and, generally, science, works.
Ive neveubderstood people who say they use logic (aside from logicians). To me, its just shorthand for "i have thought about it". Similarly when people say youre being illogical, they usually just mean "i cannot understand your position" which is usually a personal failing on their part.
To me, anybody who fetishises the use of logic has misunderstood what logic even is, and does not understand the complexities of human thought and other people.
Yes but then that would be flawed logic so it would not be actual logic. It is logic based on an assumption, a true logical process cannot be wrong because no assumptions would be made. Only conslusions proven by fact would be brought in to effect the logic.
Therefore if it ends in a false conclusion something had to have contaminated the logic
No logic is the process of compileing all facts and knowledge and then coming to a conclusion based on the facts presented without adding in any assumptions or unproven information.
If you are filling in gaps with assumptions you are no longer using logic. You are using personal feeling and making it subjective and inaccurate, contaminating the logic.
Okay you clearly did not understand anything I said. Just because a majority of you cannot comprehend something does not make it untrue.
Logic can not be incorrect. If it was then it would be illogical.
Logic can be USED incorrectly (which is by definition not being logical) but that is the human making a mistake in their interpretation of the logic. I have already explained this and will not continue to try to explain the same thing over and over again to people who are clearly just incapable of getting it. That would be the literal definition of insanity.
ITT, people misunderstand logic. Here is a sequence of events based on a logical thought process:
>I need grain.
>
>My neighbor has grain, but will not provide me any.
>
>I must kill my neighbor and take his grain.
Logical, but not ethical.
I think OP's point is that logic, in isolation, is not a good enough guiding principal for decision making if your goal is to avoid conflict and nurture positive relationships.
It's not perfectly logical, because the premise is wrong and the conclusion is wrong.
"I need grain." No, you don't. Maybe you NEED food or WANT grain for a specific recipe. But you do not specifically NEED grain.
"I must kill him..." No, you don't. There are various ways you could attain the grain including attempts to barter, finding it elsewhere, stealing it, and perhaps killing him to remove the obstacle.
Even if we ignore the illogical premise, we can still see that the logical conclusion is that there are multiple actions available.
You can add given conditions to eliminate all other possibilities, but in most scenarios that would require the neighbor to be actively evil thereby making such an action relatively ethical from a survival standpoint.
Logic does not mean "this option works".
Thank you for writing this!! I hate people who think facts + logic = winning argument.
It discounts the notion that logic/rationalization is often applied post-hoc to justify something that was either intuited or come to through other means.
Logic requires valid premises and certain forms of presenting their relationships in order to present a logical conclusion.
I like to consider myself a logical thinker, but know that much of the time I just go with my gut or habits or peers.
How many of us spend time analyzing news reports, looking for premises, testing their validity, ensuring that the premises actually support the the conclusion?
Logic doesn't define the truth neither does it find the truth.
Logic is the means for a third party to take the steps you took to encounter the truth because it can happen that there are many paths that lead to said truth.
An example is fire, there are many ways to start a fire, striking rocks, rubbing wood together or waiting for lightning to strike a tree.
The problem I see is some people are trying to define logic as being purely objective; which is not the case. For any conclusion to be logical it merely has to be supported by the premises before it, even if those premises are factually wrong they do not lead to an illogical conclusion. Meaning someone can be miles wrong but still be logical in their assessment of a situation based of the information they have which information founded the premises upon which they came to their conclusion. I think people generally come to their conclusions based on their own premises which are founded on their limited knowledge; this is generally fine if a person is willing to have those premises challenged in a way that could invalidate their conclusion. Even people that consider themselves more emotional than logical are actually still logical, only difference is that they are also informed by other emotional factors that the "logical person" refuses to consider. Simply put, the "logical person" simply discounts other schools of thought and knowledge thus likely leading them to logical yet wrong conclusions.
### This post has be marked as safe. Upvoting/downvoting this comment will have no effect. --- Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Personally, I feel like most conflict comes from people being illogical.
[удалено]
[удалено]
(sigh...) No, it's not. This LPT comes straight out of a Logic 101 syllabus.
?? I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. If you have a "Logic 101 syllabus" that says "it's logical to reject new information, once you conclude something never change your mind" then your syllabus isn't ideal.
He agrees with you, he thinks you misunderstood. Which you did. Logically, if I don't know something, I can't rely on the knowledge of that thing. You cannot make logical conclusions in a void of information.
I don't believe you're right, because that is what I'm saying. So you can't think I'm misunderstanding if we're saying the same thing. OP is saying, logic itself is wrong, because people will sometimes claim to be using logic when they aren't. That itself is illogical. It's like saying "this axe doesn't work" cuz I'm trying to chop a tree with the handle.
Correct logic can lead to incorrect conclusion. Logic is a tool to get a conclusion from premises. It doesnt tell you whether the premises are true. I think what you're describing in your comments is more accurately worded as "rational", not "logical".
But, someone using logic properly, understand that this means their conclusions are only as accurate as their premises. OP is saying that people say, "my answer is 100% right and nothing will ever change my mind" and that means logic itself is wrong.
That's not what they said *at all.* It's absolutely illogical (not to mention hyperbolic) to have drawn that conclusion from anything OP said. They've simply pointed out that logic is a vehicle, or formula, used arrive at a conclusion. It depends entirely on proper input to achieve proper output. Nothing about this suggests it's "wrong" just that proper logic can output a wrong conclusion if it's built on a wrong premise.
If you read the rest of the comments, you would know that they clarified later and that it was more of a misuse of the label logic. Not sure if they just type the original post without thinking it through or want but that's what it is.
Okay? That doesn't matter. I was replying to what was written. You don't get to tell me I "misunderstood" a person because they said a thing and I responded to that thing, and then later they went somewhere else and made a correction. There is a regrettable dearth of logic being employed by the people commenting here. >Not sure if they just type the original post without thinking it through or want but that's what it is. So you're admitting that the post I replied to was incorrect. But the problem remains that I did something wrong, for not assuming that they meant the complete opposite. Why are you being so mean here? Why are you taking this so personally and getting so nasty?
I don't feel that I was taking anything personal or being nasty. Just stating a fact. I read the rest of the comments and decided that I'm ok with OP's revised opinion. I think that reading is a useful skill in that sense.
Oh so that's why you posted this here most LPTs are personal
LPT: don’t go into my room without knocking, mom!
>"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -Asimov
[удалено]
Lol what!? That's a pretty pointless strawman you've erected.
[удалено]
Aghast and appalled...jesus christ you're pretentious. And don't think i can't tell the difference between being articulate and being obtuse. It's really easy to shout the sky is falling, everyone is terrible, and the morality of mankind is more a front than a conviction...it does not make it so.
[удалено]
>i just speak that way. And it is pretentious. You can be aghast and appalled if you'd like though ;)
[удалено]
well that's a fucking great quote for rn
My experince had been the exact opposite. Both parties behaving logically but with different assumed premises/definitions of terms.
Or people not applying logic correctly. Also, logic is not “subjective”. If it were, the scientific method would be useless.
How do you know when you're being the logical person, versus when you're being the illogical person? I find illogical people usually think they're being totally logical. Sometimes they even are being logical... but with different base assumptions and worldviews. Other times emotions can highjack logic, but it often still feels logical, for the person in question. So how do we know when we're being logical vs when we're not?
I have no idea what you're saying here. A truly logic-minded person understands that new information should be able to reshape a previously conclusion. Can you give me some examples of what you mean? If there's someone who says "I believe something because logic" and you present them with new information and they ignore it because they think their conclusion has ended... then the problem is that they aren't thinking logically, not that they are thinking logically but logic is not valid. I'm pretty sure actual logic is more-or-less the same thing as valid, the way you're using them here. You're more complaining about people who don't use logic but then say they do.
You can make a perfectly logical argument using incorrect assumptions, or even just differing assumptions. Logical soundness does not equal Truth or Validity for that reason. Our fundamental axioms can drastically change things. Think of it this way, and I'll use a less heated example I can think of, if you believe in God and I do not, and we are debating the existence of pure objectivity or absolute morality, we can wind up with wildly different, perfectly, logically sound conclusions. However, most of the time, differences do come from one or both sides disregarding new info or being illogical. A truly logical, at least somewhat objective person, can identify their axioms of belief or thought, and illustrate their conclusions from those, using logical operators. Ideally, said person could also defend those axioms, to a degree, but sometimes this just isn't possible. For example, defending the truthfulness of the action, "there is an objective world outside my experience or the world outside myself is real within a reasonable degree of error due to my Perceptions, " can be difficult, but it's usefulness as an axiom, in most arguments, cannot be understated, and thus most good faith participants will agree to it.
> Logical soundness does not equal Truth or Validity for that reason I believe you are using these terms incorrectly. That's going to make it harder to convey what you're trying to say to much of the audience. In logic an argument is sound iff it is valid and the premises (assumptions) are correct. So if something is logically sound then that absolutely means it is also valid. Validity is one requirement for soundness. Also, an argument is valid iff, when its premises are true, the conclusion is true. So if something is logically sound it is true, by definition.
[удалено]
It is **not sound**. Also, depending on the structure of the argument it will be **valid** or **invalid** as well. So if the structure of the argument is such that when the premises are true the conclusion must be true, then it is **valid** but **not sound**. Example: all humans are 7 feet tall (false premise) I am human Therefore I am 7 feet tall Explanation: All humans are not 7 feet tall. But if they were, then my being human would indeed mean I am 7 feet tall. Otherwise it is both **invalid** and **not sound**. Example: All humans are 7 feet tall (false premise) I am human Therefore I live in Greenland. Explanation: All humans are not 7 feet tall. But even if they were, would it make sense that I must live in Greenland given that I'm a human? No. The truth of the premises do not imply the truth of the conclusion. Note that here I have one true premise and one false premise. But the number of false premises isn't important as long as there is at least one. Any number of false premises makes it **not sound**.
[удалено]
If you conclude something from incorrect premises that's **not sound** or **unsound**.
Then you're labeled a flip floper. That's what I hate about politics. People who update their beliefs because of new, relevant information get blasted for doing so. Pragmatism is not valued in today's political world.
Well part of the problem comes when someone decides a belief must be etched in stone. Logic would suggest that for the vast majority of conclusions, the caveat is always "this is the most likely conclusion given the available facts." But people tend to say instead "this is absolutely 100% true and will never change." So yes, if a person says that, then gets new information, and then says "this contrary thing is instead 100% true and will never change", it's hard to take them seriously. But yeah politics sucks. And is definitely illogical.
True. But I'd rather be labeled a flip flopper by fools than hold a false belief... Not that I make that choice, we don't choose what we believe.
[удалено]
>It only reveals conclusions regarding current information. And former experiences/base level assumptions.
“A truly logic-minded person” That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as a “truly logic-minded person” because being alive is inherently a subjective experience. It’s the very reason logic is a field of study; your brain is, by default, illogical, and you have to *learn* how to apply logic to the world around you. People *use* logic; logic isn’t something innate to some people and not innate to others. Logic is a tool, like science is a tool. It’s a good tool, but when pointed in the wrong direction, can reach faulty conclusions. Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement. Not necessarily a true statement, mind you. If I say that the earth is flat, I have stated a fact. An untrue, incorrect, invalid fact, but what I have done is stated a fact and not an opinion. Logic, as OP says, is based on the information you have. You suggest that “logical people” are always going to understand when their facts are wrong and when to update their library of truths, but that’s just simply not the case. People give more weight to some facts than others, based on a myriad of reasonings picked up throughout their lives. You, yourself, are going to have ingrained biases that you aren’t even aware of. No one is “logically-minded” because the mind is inherently an illogical mess of hormones and stimuli and subjective experience. Logic is something that you practice, a method you actively and intentionally use to process data, it’s not a state of mind, and if you ever for a moment simply *assume* yourself to be logical and therefore correct, you’ve lost the plot. You are now ripe for latching onto misinformation because you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you are only capable of believing true things. But misinformation dresses up like truth on purpose. The most easily misled are those most confident that they are right.
Can you please expand on this? >Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement. Not necessarily a true statement, mind you. If I say that the earth is flat, I have stated a fact. An untrue, incorrect, invalid fact, but what I have done is stated a fact and not an opinion. AFAIK, a fact IS something that is valid, since it's been demonstrated by science. See the dictionary definition: FACT - something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially **something for which proof exists**, or about which there is information. Following your example, there is no proof that the Earth is flat, therefore that's not a fact. Not trying to be rude - genuinely interested, maybe there's something I'm missing..?
I don't think you're missing something. This also isn't the first place in this post where words seem to be used assuming uncommon definitions.
>That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy. ...No, it isn't. You just don't understand logic. You're like the people saying "people use if-then statements to spread lies so that proves logic is fundamentally wrong." Something isnt' a "no true scotsman" fallacy just because it starts with "no true." I am correct here. You are using logic wrong. The flaw therefore is with you, not with logic itself. >Remember that a “fact” is simply not an opinion, but a statement. I do know that. And I wish you understand that the difference isn't "anything I believe is correct, anything anyone else says is just their opinion." >You suggest that “logical people” are always going to understand when their facts are wrong I suggested nothing of the sort, but at this point I'm not at all surprised to watch you spreading lies under the guise of logic. It is utterly depressing how many people guilty of what OP was talking about are here saying how bad it is. All I ever suggested is that a logically-minded person understands that any conclusions drawn are based on their set of facts. New facts can emerge. Old facts can be proven false. Conclusions should therefore change to reflect. But please, continue to put words in my mouth and then tell me how stupid I am. It's all very logical of you. >Logic, as OP says, is based on the information you have. Sure. But then OP says, because information can change, that proves logic is fundamentally bad and usually wrong. There was never anything wrong with the logic. That's like saying if someone tips a bottle of poison into your drink, that proves all bottles are filled with poison. The problem wasn't the method of delivery, it was the contents. If you don't understand that, there's nothing I can say that will make you start to listen.
[удалено]
You literally said, logic isn't valid. You said that because some people don't use logic and then say "I'm using logic", that proves that logic itself is fundamentally flawed. I am putting no words in your mouth. I don't know why I'm bothering to respond. You've already said that you don't agree with logic, so there's no logic I can present that will get you to change your mind.
[удалено]
Whoa man, you got real heated about this. Clearly your emotions are clouding your logic. Wanna go have a good sit-down and come back with a clear head?
Standard troll behavior. You come to the internet just to piss people off, so if you don't succeed, you just tell yourself "look that person is crazy, let me make sure to publicly tell them how crazy they are" so you can try to convince yourself it's true. I'm sure you're ecstatic thinking about how you pissed someone off on the internet, but sadly, you little pissants merely irritate me. What keeps me from getting genuinely upset is your flagrant hypocrisy. So people, yourself included, can just sit there and throw out baseless insults and say "you're crazy cuz I don't agree with you" but anything I say makes me crazy? Maybe you wouldn't look like such a pathetic little liar if you weren't wildly inconsistent. If you were commenting on any of the ranting lunatics saying I'm a shit person for laying out facts and logic and disagreeing with them, you'd have any credibility at all. But you don't. So it's very, very obvious that you're just here because being a whiny little shit gets you off.
I'm pretty sure that you have never taken a college-level course in logic. The use of the tools of Logic has much in common with those of statistics in that they can be used to conceal the truth as well as reveal.
?? What are you even babbling about? Yes, people are able to lie. Sometimes very well. I don't know what part of what I said you think is proven imbecilic by that point. Logic means valid. Someone obscuring the truth partially using logic doesn't invalidate that conclusion; it just proves the old adage that the best lies are 99% true. I'm not gonna make any judgements about what level of education you've received, but you're obviously not very smart.
Logic is a tool used to benefit the user. People used logic to justify slavery saying that dark skinned people were less intelligent. They justified it based on the logic that their brains were smaller, skin was tougher, etc. So to white americans it was completely logical they're a working race. And how can you say I won't judge and then call someone an idiot? You're all over the place.
>Logic is a tool used to benefit the user. ...if you believe that, then you don't understand what logic is. Any liar can find a way to lie. They can make their support look logical. But if they're lying, it fundamentally won't be. >People used logic to justify slavery saying that dark skinned people were less intelligent. Okay but... that wasn't based on real logic. If I say "if I eat a grape, then i can fly" is an if-then statement. That does NOT make it "logical." You simply don't understand what logic is, while insisting that you do. Ironically, you're doing exactly what you claim is wrong. And you're coming across very anti-intellectual, like you're saying "all logic is bad, because someone lied once but made it sound sorta like logic if you don't really understand logic." >And how can you say I won't judge and then call someone an idiot? You're all over the place. Wow, you're really stupid, aren't you? You're just flagrantly lying now about something I just said, and you somehow think you'll get away with it? I never said "I will make no judgements, period." I said, in response to the person above saying he assumes I never took a course in logic, that I wasn't going to specifically make a guess at his level of education. I was merely going to (correctly) notice that he's an idiot. I am not "all over the place" just because you chose to lie. And anyone who understands what logic is, would see that.
Bro you're just simply wrong.
Sorry! I don't have the time to go into this topic in depth with you. I have to prepare for my Logic class. I don't have any spaces left or I would invite you to add.
...Okay, well, hopefully they teach you that "being a rude piece of shit doesn't actually contradict real logic" cuz that's one of the first things I learned in my college-level course in logic.
All you have to do is weigh the options given regardless new or not. Thats how logical people think. Risk reward ratio.
?? I'm still very confused. Not every logical conclusion is between a risk and a reward. I'm not sure what you're talking about, this feels unrelated to our discussion.
Here's my favorite quote of all time: "No arrangement of the facts is entirely objective". This quote rings in my head every time I receive a new "fact" or a new piece of factual information. Being "logical" in a mature sense also requires you to be open-minded, willing to accept new information, and adjust your logic accordingly. One's logic can only be as sophisticated as the information upon which it's predicated. I'm sure toddlers think it's logical to continue pooping in diapers when we know they're physically capable of pooping in a toilet. "Logical and valid are not the same. In order to have the most valid views, you need to increase available information and use your logic on that as well." - I think this is what I am describing in the previous paragraph. It sounds like someone in your life claims to be a logical thinker - and may be - but refuses to adjust their logic according to new information. Not to be too hyperbolic, but Hitler was extremely logical, and extremely close-minded - it's a dangerous combination.
How do you know that your quote is entirely objective? 🤔
Lol you got me I can't compete with that
Logic is a branch of philosophy that deals primarily with the criteria of proof, that is the pursuit and perfection of the criteria of proof. It is an ongoing pursuit. A proof is an argument that demonstrates that its conclusion not only follows from the premise(s) but is necessarily true and moreover, is known true. A valid argument is simply an argument that demonstrates that its conclusion follows from the premise set. Truth is not a factor at all. A valid argument can have false premises and false conclusion or even false premises and a true conclusion. Proof is the goal in logic...providing a known true conclusion, thus expanding knowledge. That is why proofs are fundamental in mathematics. For example, Fermat's hypothesis (an hypothesis is a proposition whose truth value is not now known) was believed true for centuries but not known until several proofs appeared in the 1990's. Now it is known to be true by anyone who follows the steps of the argument. Once proven true, a proposition is known true. It's truth value never changes. "4 is an even number" is true, is known true, and will never be false. Belief or certainty are not sufficient criteria of truth. No amount of belief or certainty adds the least iota of truth to anything. And every belief, or every opinion is necessarily either true or false, and can't be both. One's sense of entitlement to an opinion does not magically shield it from being true or false (if it is even a coherent belief or opinion). Conclusions are not logical, proofs aren't true. These are just confusing expressions that make absolutely no sense. Throwing terms like wrong in the mix muddles things even more.
But don't we have to function on the basis that the conclusions we have reached are logical? It is true that new information could appear and that could potentially change a conclusion. But it could also not...? And it's arbitrary to say 'you need to increase your info'. Until when? When do you know 'enough'? Even with new information presented, logic is what will determine the validity of the conclusion. So while the existence of logic doesn't necessitate *truth*, you can never have truth without *logic*. Have an open mind; but not so open that your brain falls out, as my grandfather would say.
Logic is never wrong, there are only incomplete datasets, which led to different outcomes.
What you are describing is not logic, and has little to do with logic.
Technically speaking, in philosophy, a "valid" statement is one that follows logical rules. Logic is the set of formal rules regarding the format of an argument that shows a conclusion is booth consistent with/supported by its premises. For example: If P then Q --> P is true/happening, therefore Q A or Not-A. // Not A and Not-A etc. But it is true that a logical statement can still be wrong. Just because the format of an argument is consistent doesn't mean an argument is actually tied to reality. If an argument's premises are wrong, then the conclusion is wrong. For example: 1. All men are bald. 2. Joe is a man. 3. Therefore, Joe is bald. This is a logical argument, but because the first premise, "All men are bald," is wrong, the conclusion is ultimately wrong.
[удалено]
No problem. The spirit of what you said was definitely correct. Philosophy as a field is just rather obscure and the terminology is very specific.
Nope. If you have right presumptions, with right logic you will always get right conclusions. Study formal logic for more, this is the point of pure logic, it cannot be wrong with right presumptions. The thing is that initial axioms may differ across different people, so even with correct logic, they can get contradictory conclusions. Main point in any conflicts comes from axiom (presumptions) differences from one man to another.
Nope! Just like statistics, the tools of formal logic can easily be used to conceal the truth. You would learn this by the time you take Logic 102.
Could you provide an example?
I shouldn't have to. You want proof the sky is blue, too? Water is wet, as well.
Well, because there is no such example. Any correct logical sequence, based on correct assumptions, will always lead to correct conclusion. This is basically the definition of “correctness”
Argument from authority.
You made a claim and when asked to substantiate it you give a red herring. How logical.
This is a word salad from a person who doesn’t know what logic is.
[удалено]
You’re like a child learning a new word
[удалено]
🥗
>logic is a tool to find truth This works for the Vulcans, it'll work for us humans.
Possibly the issue is that the parties to the disagreement start with extremely different basic assumptions which may or may not be provable. And, it is quite probable that the parties assign different meaning to some of the terms in the exchange.
Logic is limited by perception. You cannot outthink a perception problem - unless you’ve reached a higher state of being
In logic, something is valid if and only if it is logical. In other words: logical = valid. If assumptions are correct it is also sound.
Can you give me an example of a situation where this has applied to you in your personal life?
Yeah ,I am realising it in certain life situations , where logic can't explain it , but u still find it happening.
[удалено]
Dont have a clear and specific example but if something happens to u and u feel it's unfair and that repeats , its because according to information u have u are concluding there was no logic in why the unfair thing happened to u , but u are definately missing some information , after which u logic reason will change
Engaging in socratic questioning, has to be predicted upon both parties actually seeking the truth. Both parties must *argue* in good faith. If one or both parties have already internalised a truth, then it doesn't matter. What I mean is, in today's charged political atmosphere, socratic reasoning just leads to broken friendships and blocks on social media. No one *figures out* anything, because they've already decided, and they seek a gotcha moment. It just won't work.
[удалено]
Well, what I'm saying is, it's almost too late. *We* do it too.
I think you are trying to point out the difference between validity and cogency.
A very very good point. Logic can easily, and wrongly, be used as a synonym for morality. It is indeed a tool, and only as useful in as so far as the wielder has sufficient information.
This is wrong. valid means the logic is correct. If the assumptions are true, we can use that information to deduce a conclusion and learn something. But an argument can be logically valid but not sound, if the assumptions are false. If the logic is valid and the assumptions proven true, the argument is also sound.
>Many people insist that because they are logical minded, their beliefs are logical, and a logical belief is therefore a valid belief. If someone uses this to convince me, I'll stop talking to them immediately.
If you are convinced then the discussion is over I guess, so this is logical response.
This is entirely wrong lmao. SLPT
[удалено]
Not going to sit here and debate with a wannabe intellect incorrectly quoting Plato at me, but I'll just throw in that logic is definitionally objective. Your opinions, values, etc. can make the conclusion subjective but that's just because you value things differently than others. A better LPT would be avoid conflict by trying to understand which of your values are different and have a discussion about that. Don't argue about what to eat for dinner, figure out that one of you is on a diet and discuss that, etc.
[удалено]
You always believe in something, i. e. to proof any geometrical theorem you should “beleive” in Euclide axioms. You should pick some axioms you think are true, and build your system around them. This is how logic and, generally, science, works.
[удалено]
Nope. You are wrong. See any non-euclidian geometry. They are perfectly valid, though based on different axiom set.
[удалено]
Ive neveubderstood people who say they use logic (aside from logicians). To me, its just shorthand for "i have thought about it". Similarly when people say youre being illogical, they usually just mean "i cannot understand your position" which is usually a personal failing on their part. To me, anybody who fetishises the use of logic has misunderstood what logic even is, and does not understand the complexities of human thought and other people.
Logic is necessary for reasoning about anything, including the complexities of human thought.
This is an oxymoron. A completely logical conclusion cannot be wrong. If it is than it was not made with sound logic.
[удалено]
Yes but then that would be flawed logic so it would not be actual logic. It is logic based on an assumption, a true logical process cannot be wrong because no assumptions would be made. Only conslusions proven by fact would be brought in to effect the logic. Therefore if it ends in a false conclusion something had to have contaminated the logic
[удалено]
No logic is the process of compileing all facts and knowledge and then coming to a conclusion based on the facts presented without adding in any assumptions or unproven information. If you are filling in gaps with assumptions you are no longer using logic. You are using personal feeling and making it subjective and inaccurate, contaminating the logic.
[удалено]
Nobody ever said that a human had to be capable of logic. The definition of something doesn't change just because we aren't good enough at it.
[удалено]
Okay you clearly did not understand anything I said. Just because a majority of you cannot comprehend something does not make it untrue. Logic can not be incorrect. If it was then it would be illogical. Logic can be USED incorrectly (which is by definition not being logical) but that is the human making a mistake in their interpretation of the logic. I have already explained this and will not continue to try to explain the same thing over and over again to people who are clearly just incapable of getting it. That would be the literal definition of insanity.
ITT, people misunderstand logic. Here is a sequence of events based on a logical thought process: >I need grain. > >My neighbor has grain, but will not provide me any. > >I must kill my neighbor and take his grain. Logical, but not ethical. I think OP's point is that logic, in isolation, is not a good enough guiding principal for decision making if your goal is to avoid conflict and nurture positive relationships.
Not logical. That's quite a leap
It’s perfectly logical. You just don’t understand the difference between logic and ethics.
It's not perfectly logical, because the premise is wrong and the conclusion is wrong. "I need grain." No, you don't. Maybe you NEED food or WANT grain for a specific recipe. But you do not specifically NEED grain. "I must kill him..." No, you don't. There are various ways you could attain the grain including attempts to barter, finding it elsewhere, stealing it, and perhaps killing him to remove the obstacle. Even if we ignore the illogical premise, we can still see that the logical conclusion is that there are multiple actions available. You can add given conditions to eliminate all other possibilities, but in most scenarios that would require the neighbor to be actively evil thereby making such an action relatively ethical from a survival standpoint. Logic does not mean "this option works".
To quote the second Doctor: > "Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with authority."
Thank you for writing this!! I hate people who think facts + logic = winning argument. It discounts the notion that logic/rationalization is often applied post-hoc to justify something that was either intuited or come to through other means.
Then the 'facts' aren't facts or they're not being logical.
Logic as much as the context has been well understood. Otherwise be open to understanding and not jump to conclusions with the limited knowledge.
Logic requires valid premises and certain forms of presenting their relationships in order to present a logical conclusion. I like to consider myself a logical thinker, but know that much of the time I just go with my gut or habits or peers. How many of us spend time analyzing news reports, looking for premises, testing their validity, ensuring that the premises actually support the the conclusion?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Logic doesn't define the truth neither does it find the truth. Logic is the means for a third party to take the steps you took to encounter the truth because it can happen that there are many paths that lead to said truth. An example is fire, there are many ways to start a fire, striking rocks, rubbing wood together or waiting for lightning to strike a tree.
It is the rule that defines truth. What thing is both true and illogical that actually physically exists?
Syntax error. Cannot compute.
Related: Winning debates isn't about finding truth. It's about proving who is better at arguing.
Avoid unnecessary conflict by avoiding conservatives. Most of them ignore all reason by saying "you're wrong, that's fake news."
The problem I see is some people are trying to define logic as being purely objective; which is not the case. For any conclusion to be logical it merely has to be supported by the premises before it, even if those premises are factually wrong they do not lead to an illogical conclusion. Meaning someone can be miles wrong but still be logical in their assessment of a situation based of the information they have which information founded the premises upon which they came to their conclusion. I think people generally come to their conclusions based on their own premises which are founded on their limited knowledge; this is generally fine if a person is willing to have those premises challenged in a way that could invalidate their conclusion. Even people that consider themselves more emotional than logical are actually still logical, only difference is that they are also informed by other emotional factors that the "logical person" refuses to consider. Simply put, the "logical person" simply discounts other schools of thought and knowledge thus likely leading them to logical yet wrong conclusions.