Proof of Logic (1222 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1 on 19 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <erminator.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-05-06 17:35:26 EDT
I have no idea where I'm really going with this post. I was discussing something with someone (nevermind what it was about), and the other person was obviously wrong. He kept replying to my arguments with 'So?' and 'Why?'. It was very tedious. His closing argument was that my arguments were based on logic.
"Yes. That's why I'm right."
"Why? Maybe logic is flawed. How do you know logic to be a good solution to solving problems?"
Obviously this guy was screwing me over after losing an argument, but I couldn't punch any holes in this statement. So, how can we prove logic IS a good.. method of deriving answers? How can we prove logic is... well, true.
Someone, prove logic to me.
User Reviews
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2003-05-07 07:27:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
My head hurts.
Your kharma just ran over my dogma.
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-07 04:52:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I like Joshua Redman... Bastard stole my name, though...
Submitted by blujnbbyqn (user info) at 2003-05-07 04:36:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
By Istaros - Damn the hipsters, with their fancy books and their Joshua Redman. I hope a coffeeshop burns down with them in it, leaving behind nothing but piles of horn-rimmed glasses and the misunderstood musings of Kerouac and Sartre among the ashes and the sweet, sweet smell of Colombia's second largest export. Damn them all to Dante's Inferno
___________________________________________________________________
That's some funny shit! That made my night.
Michelle
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-07 04:18:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, that was "retort," not "retors."
Submitted by Istaros <archon_templar.at.hotmail.com> at 2003-05-07 04:17:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Damn. Was this a religious discussion?
Asking "how can you trust logic?" is like asking "how can you prove that light exists?" Whereas it does seem to be a pretty interesting question at first, you almost immediately realize that it's pure shit. This type of question is usually put forth by someone who has a mistaken conception of the phenomenon being discussed; in the case of the existence of light, the individual posing the question would, by nature of the question itself, need to have a rather misguided idea of what light is. It's existence is a fact; what may be brought into question is its nature, but that does not deny its existence as a phenomenon that informs us of our surroundings with above-average accuracy and expediency. To say that light doesn't exist would be beyond stupid, and would bring new meaning to the insultive retors, "Open your eyes!"
Basically, the question "How do you know logic to be a good solution to solving problems?" is inherently flawed in that it ignores the very definition of "logic" in an annoyingly cavalier manner. To ask a question like this is to preclude oneself from being an intriguing conversationalist. It makes one's pseudo-intellectual pursuits of "metaknowledge" appear only as grotesque as they really are, which is only slightly less grotesque than goatse.cx
Damn the hipsters, with their fancy books and their Joshua Redman. I hope a coffeeshop burns down with them in it, leaving behind nothing but piles of horn-rimmed glasses and the misunderstood musings of Kerouac and Sartre among the ashes and the sweet, sweet smell of Colombia's second largest export. Damn them all to Dante's Inferno.
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-05-07 04:05:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Reading teh responses I get the idea that Logic can only be proven true WITH logic. That would make it a dogma, and actually much like religion.
Right?
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-05-07 03:47:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Hmm.. Thanks everyone. That was enlightening.
Now I think about, I should have kicked his ass... Well, maybe some other time.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-05-07 00:45:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Philosophically, it all comes back to the fact that true is true. Just like evolution, the big bang, religion, and human life, you start with pure nothing and then create two things by putting an equal sign in the middle. It's really that simple.
For example, take the following:
0
Not much there. Nowhere to go really. If I do:
0 + 8
I get something else, but what did I just prove? Nothing.
Instead, start with:
true
Then expand... law of equality:
6 = 6
Geometric singularity:
6 = 6 * 1
Reverse reduction:
6 = 6 * (52/52)
Associative property:
6 = (6 * 52) / 52
etc.
In the end, you still have what you started with: true. However, you've essentially created something with some inherent value by portraying it as a relationship. Matter and antimatter, I think therefore I am, conservation of energy, all that jazz. It's all the same thing in different packaging.
That said, you should have kicked his ass anyway.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2003-05-07 00:28:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
There are three words that win any arguement... 'YOU ARE FAT'.
Submitted by Catscradle at 2003-05-06 22:32:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Chipolatte,
Yes, they're assumptions. It's the relationship between the assumptions (premises) and the conclusion. The nature of the premises matters not, the logic lies in how they support the conclusion. Look up "modus ponens", "modus tollens", "denying the antecedent", and "affirming the consequence". As well as "deductive reasoning".
Submitted by seansdementia (user info) at 2003-05-06 22:26:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
logic is in the eye of the beholder. Your logic may be considered false and inane to another..no matter how right yuou are. Some people just can see the logic in some things..i see this everyday. i am in the military and logic seems to have vanishe din alot that I do daily..but what the boss says goes. Knowing that your right..with logixc on your side is the best..whether the othewr knows it or not
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-05-06 21:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Catscradle, that's more of a set of assumptions taht people shouldn't live under...
Logic would be not running in front of a speeding bus. Whenever I can't prove an argument, whether I'm right or wrong, I always simplify it back to the speeding bus theory.
Submitted by village_idiot (user info) at 2003-05-06 18:18:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you should have shot him on the spot. when people ask "why" anywhere within earshot of me, i shoot them just for having tainted the gene pool with their idiocy.
Submitted by beer-turtle (user info) at 2003-05-06 18:07:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
logical questions typically will have a yes or no answer.
When asked in a series you can use logic as a means of elimination.
Logic is also based on solid facts not opinions.
Someone using SO? and WHY? as arguments are being contrary and not actually arguing.
-Turtle
Submitted by Catscradle at 2003-05-06 18:02:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anything that is true because it MUST be true is in the realm of logic. Geometry is all logic. D_D's hypothetical syllogism is another example of good logic. Another way of defining logic is that a conclusion follows a first statement by causation and NOT correlation.
The whole is greater than the part - logic.
All people are smart. I am a person. I am smart. - logic
All people are smart. I am smart. Therefore I am a person - not logic
All people are stupid. I am not a person. Therefore I am not stupid. -not logic
Submitted by Phinch (user info) at 2003-05-06 17:54:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
defining logic without the use of logic would be the most logical approach.
however the process of proving logic via a logical approach is flawed because logic was used.
Therefore one must prove logic illogically.
you must take logic on faith because otherwise it would be logical.
phinch
Submitted by jwlmar10 (user info) at 2003-05-06 17:54:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Why? Maybe logic is flawed. How do you know logic to be a good solution to solving problems?"
Because logic IS solving problems. What else would you use to solve a problem than logic? The entire basis of logic is that when used correctly it is a failsafe way to draw conclusions! Why didn't you kill this person? That seems logical.
Submitted by d_d (user info) at 2003-05-06 17:43:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
hmm...
i would say look at deductive reasoning..
forming propostions in a way that cant be proved wrong..
ie.
1) a=b
2) b=c
therefore, a=c
This cant be proved wrong.. this was one of many differnt methods and formulas that exist in deductive reasoning that cant be proved wrong.. one of many i learned in an Intro to Logic course i took in first year
im sure someone can elaborate more
Submitted by Nator (user info) at 2003-05-06 17:36:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Another thing.. is there Logic without Illogic?? How can you prove Illogic?