TheBrainintheJar said: A good argument does require evidence because every idea has practical implications - including abstract stuff like ethics and 'does life have meaning?'. It can be hard to supply or sometimes less necessary, but evidence always contributes. Evidence only supports a conclusion. Reading back my earlier posts, I think I must clarify the difference between knowledge and evidence. Evidence is information put forward to support or deny a conclusion. Knowledge is simply what we already know. So, basically, evidence contributes only when it is coupled with a sound rationale. Evidence itself is lifeless. Imagine walking through a museum corridor with a long series of pictures on your left side; each picture follow the last one; it's a succession of pictures -- like the frames of a movie. You are not looking at them but suddenly you do. You behold a picture in one instant and since you haven't seen the 'pattern' they're following, you will not be able to answer, 'What will be the next picture like?'. Surely you can see the picture itself and make connections within that picture; explaining how that dog has a stick in its mouth so it must be that someone had thrown it to him etc. But without the knowledge of the 'pattern', you will not be able to make a valuable prediction. Most of the evidence we come across (especially in online debates) has only predictive value. If it helps us predict something, good, if it doesn't, we don't need it. |
Yes said: Sometimes what people "know" happens to be wrong. Knowledge is defined as 'justified true belief'. If it were wrong, then it was belief. What we call knowledge is simply what we've affirmed so many times that there remains no doubt in its truth. |
Yes said: xEmptiness said: People knew the earth was round once, that was "known"Knowledge is defined as 'justified true belief'. If it were wrong, then it was belief. What we call knowledge is simply what we've affirmed so many times that there remains no doubt in its truth. I was using the epistemological definition of knowledge. People do the most atrocious stuff. If we keep looking at people, no discussion will ever progress. |
| If a person has a strong opinion on a subject and believes they know it to be true, then not being able to provide or find evidence of what they "know" is a red flag. Also - evidence in debates happens in real life too. Court is pretty much a debate between people and evidence is typically a must. |
 |
xEmptiness said: TheBrainintheJar said: A good argument does require evidence because every idea has practical implications - including abstract stuff like ethics and 'does life have meaning?'. It can be hard to supply or sometimes less necessary, but evidence always contributes. Evidence only supports a conclusion. Reading back my earlier posts, I think I must clarify the difference between knowledge and evidence. Evidence is information put forward to support or deny a conclusion. Knowledge is simply what we already know. So, basically, evidence contributes only when it is coupled with a sound rationale. Evidence itself is lifeless. Imagine walking through a museum corridor with a long series of pictures on your left side; each picture follow the last one; it's a succession of pictures -- like the frames of a movie. You are not looking at them but suddenly you do. You behold a picture in one instant and since you haven't seen the 'pattern' they're following, you will not be able to answer, 'What will be the next picture like?'. Surely you can see the picture itself and make connections within that picture; explaining how that dog has a stick in its mouth so it must be that someone had thrown it to him etc. But without the knowledge of the 'pattern', you will not be able to make a valuable prediction. Most of the evidence we come across (especially in online debates) has only predictive value. If it helps us predict something, good, if it doesn't, we don't need it. Of course without the tools of comprehending evidence you can't support a conclusion. Evidence is actually just a piece of information. Only intelligence connects pieces of information to a conclusion. That's why most animals don't use tools. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| Unfortunately irl it's hard to just bring evidence to the table unless you prepared it. So we just pull sht out of air like you said, but doing so sometimes make us look stupid. Which can happen on the internet with unreputable sources. We all fall on different places on the political/ethics/morality/personality type spectrums so logic is different for every single one of us. My 'friend' had very flawed logic, in my honest opinion, but she thought she was the queen of logic. Even thought my logic was flawed (Which I feel someone like me who got a fking 98 percent in financial algebra (both semesters) must be have something unflawed about my own logic). SHE THOUGHT SOCIALISM as a political system would be GOOD. She said FREE HEALTH CARE makes sense. But her logic was flawed. IT DIDN'T WORK. She didn't have evidence, so it was obviously based in opinion. Which is just something we make up on our own. For an INTJ she isn't very good at looking into things. Therefore, how can we TRUST anyone's 'logical rational' just because it's said with confidence? Especially on the internet where things just get hairy because you have the option to just stop talking to someone or reading their words. Their point is invalid to you, because their rational makes no sense. EVIDENCE is something that should be pointed out every single time. When I say 'where's your evidence' I mean I'm pissed at you for being such a stubborn brick wall and I want to see if you actual put a real thought behind something instead of your ridiculous rational which is all opinion. Rational can just go stick its head in the ground. It's only worth something when evidence can back it the fuc up. |
 |
dakotasapphire said: Unfortunately irl it's hard to just bring evidence to the table unless you prepared it. So we just pull sht out of air like you said, but doing so sometimes make us look stupid. Which can happen on the internet with unreputable sources. We all fall on different places on the political/ethics/morality/personality type spectrums so logic is different for every single one of us. My 'friend' had very flawed logic, in my honest opinion, but she thought she was the queen of logic. Even thought my logic was flawed (Which I feel someone like me who got a fking 98 percent in financial algebra (both semesters) must be have something unflawed about my own logic). SHE THOUGHT SOCIALISM as a political system would be GOOD. She said FREE HEALTH CARE makes sense. But her logic was flawed. IT DIDN'T WORK. She didn't have evidence, so it was obviously based in opinion. Which is just something we make up on our own. For an INTJ she isn't very good at looking into things. Therefore, how can we TRUST anyone's 'logical rational' just because it's said with confidence? Especially on the internet where things just get hairy because you have the option to just stop talking to someone or reading their words. Their point is invalid to you, because their rational makes no sense. EVIDENCE is something that should be pointed out every single time. When I say 'where's your evidence' I mean I'm pissed at you for being such a stubborn brick wall and I want to see if you actual put a real thought behind something instead of your ridiculous rational which is all opinion. Rational can just go stick its head in the ground. It's only worth something when evidence can back it the fuc up. Logic isn't a subjective entity. It's like Math. No one can have his personal Math. 55Snakes said: Because the way we think about things is often overly simplistic and evidence to the contrary is distinct proof that the arguer was being arrogant e.g. says something is always true but then up pops an example of it being untrue. It's called a reality check. A rational person will just accept the falsity of his arguments with maturity. When you don't have ample evidence backing up your statements then it is natural to be less confident of what you say. You can still argue from that point on the basis 'it makes sense to me'. Increase in information doesn't make for a good analysis; nor does it help the analyst make a good judgment. It just gives more grounds for one to be confident in one's assertion. |
WyNdZ said: Actually asking "Do you have evidence?" is a good way to negotiate/ win arguments in real life as well but it's normally not used by most people. One thing you must realise is that humans are not very rational creatures, we're irrational as we're easily influenced by our emotions. Touche. But in formal debates, that doesn't work. One thing you must realize is that people suck at reasoning not because they're emotional but because they don't know how to reason. That's the reason 9/10 times. Well I'd argue that if you were actually convincing enough with your rationale then the person wouldn't ask you for evidence in the first place. Your explanation should be such that it makes the other person also believe in your rationale as their own. Valid point. But that assumes the other person is rational enough to be convinced by a rational argument. People, usually, are convinced more by rhetoric than by logic. Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? The best argument would be one which has a well reasoned rationale and also evidence to back it up. You say if an argument is logical then nothing can go against it but then you talk about how we mend logic....that just means that whatever logic is being used isn't set in stone.. They aren't truly mutually exclusive. If evidence supports a good rationale, that's well and good. But if there's no evidence, then that shouldn't get in the way of accepting a strong hypotheses. Especially considering that most arguments revolve around moral or predictive issues where evidence (which would be 'situational logic' if we're predicting a trend) doesn't help much. In moral issues, it's clear that only reason can do anything. In issues where predictions are to be made then the only evidence that exists is in present which doesn't say anything for itself unless you reason it through analogies from history etc. Logic is a structure. When we talk about 'mending' a structure, we don't mean to change the structure, we only want to replace the parts. The only time when a well-reasoned rationale fails is when it fails to take account of a vital piece of information which was, at the time when the argument was made, unknown to the subject. Once it is known, the subject can fit that information into his logical structure and reach some conclusion again. Failures such as these are not failures of logic. They are failures of inadequate data collection. But that isn't to say that data is paramount. No, in analytic judgments, data plays minimal role. You don't need to know ALL the factors that play a part in bringing about something. You only need to know the relevant ones. But it is true that at times we have discovered some things which did force us to alter our logical structure. Like the discovery of the curvature of space. Logically and intuitively, it made sense that if you start drawing a straight line from any one point in space and keep stretching it, the line will go towards infinity. But now, the idea is that if you stretch your line to infinity, you'll end up drawing a circle. |
Trance said: dakotasapphire said: Unfortunately irl it's hard to just bring evidence to the table unless you prepared it. So we just pull sht out of air like you said, but doing so sometimes make us look stupid. Which can happen on the internet with unreputable sources. We all fall on different places on the political/ethics/morality/personality type spectrums so logic is different for every single one of us. My 'friend' had very flawed logic, in my honest opinion, but she thought she was the queen of logic. Even thought my logic was flawed (Which I feel someone like me who got a fking 98 percent in financial algebra (both semesters) must be have something unflawed about my own logic). SHE THOUGHT SOCIALISM as a political system would be GOOD. She said FREE HEALTH CARE makes sense. But her logic was flawed. IT DIDN'T WORK. She didn't have evidence, so it was obviously based in opinion. Which is just something we make up on our own. For an INTJ she isn't very good at looking into things. Therefore, how can we TRUST anyone's 'logical rational' just because it's said with confidence? Especially on the internet where things just get hairy because you have the option to just stop talking to someone or reading their words. Their point is invalid to you, because their rational makes no sense. EVIDENCE is something that should be pointed out every single time. When I say 'where's your evidence' I mean I'm pissed at you for being such a stubborn brick wall and I want to see if you actual put a real thought behind something instead of your ridiculous rational which is all opinion. Rational can just go stick its head in the ground. It's only worth something when evidence can back it the fuc up. Logic isn't a subjective entity. It's like Math. No one can have his personal Math. 55Snakes said: Because the way we think about things is often overly simplistic and evidence to the contrary is distinct proof that the arguer was being arrogant e.g. says something is always true but then up pops an example of it being untrue. It's called a reality check. A rational person will just accept the falsity of his arguments with maturity. When you don't have ample evidence backing up your statements then it is natural to be less confident of what you say. You can still argue from that point on the basis 'it makes sense to me'. Increase in information doesn't make for a good analysis; nor does it help the analyst make a good judgment. It just gives more grounds for one to be confident in one's assertion. Except logic isn't rationality. SO please, don't define it as such. And logic is nothing like math. Logic is based in your head, math is just the rules. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: Except logic isn't rationality. SO please, don't define it as such. And logic is nothing like math. Logic is based in your head, math is just the rules. Logic is a prerequisite for rationality. You can't be rational without being logical. And logic is to math what oxygen is to humans. Math is unaware of logic until we focus on the fact that 'oh it's all logical!' exactly as we are unaware of our breathing until we choose to focus on the fact that we breathe. |
Trance said: dakotasapphire said: Except logic isn't rationality. SO please, don't define it as such. And logic is nothing like math. Logic is based in your head, math is just the rules. Logic is a prerequisite for rationality. You can't be rational without being logical. And logic is to math what oxygen is to humans. Math is unaware of logic until we focus on the fact that 'oh it's all logical!' exactly as we are unaware of our breathing until we choose to focus on the fact that we breathe. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Logical: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something Right you're right. It's not math. Nothing like math. It's rules we imposed on ourselves. Nothing scientific about it. Math actually needs rules and all math is all the same rules, otherwise, it doesn't work. It's something different for everyone. So, it's based on principle. But principle is based in our own minds. It's not always based on fact. So evidence brings this to the table. Only certain subjects are never able to be facts. Those can be rational. |
| |
Trance said: It depends on what you're arguing about. Empiricism is an a posteriori problem, and you cannot apply to it an a priori solution. Logic is a tool with a limited scope in that it can only tell you whether it makes sense to make a conclusion based on some premises. It cannot tell you if the premises are true. Things in this world can only be determined to be true when people sense them. That's why you need evidence.I've seen this happening only in online debates. The question, 'Do you have evidence?', is a surefire way to defeat your opponent. But that defeat doesn't come as in actually refuting the points, it simply comes from having agitated your opponent to the point where he stops replying. Thanks to google, asking for evidence is always an option; otherwise, in real life, no one asks for 'evidence'. You pull statistics out of your ass if you should. What matters is your 'rationale'. How you reason through premise #1 to #2 to give a conclusion. Or, if you're debating in front of an audience, then rhetoric is equally important. In online debates, what matters is 'evidence'. And for the wrong reasons too; evidence, if not reasoned properly, can lead to confirmation bias through rationalization -- I swear I'm not going into a paradox. But that confirmation bias doesn't come from a flaw of 'rationalizing', it comes from the wrong employment of rationality. To rationalize the evidence is simply to answer two things: 1. Is this evidence relevant to the situation/argument? 2. Does this even make sense? But apparently people only employ rationality when it comes to using evidence to connect one thing to another and output an idiotic conclusion. 90% of the online debates I've seen are facepalm-inducing solely due to this. Here's my declaration: A well-reasoned rationale beats evidence any day. Because if your argument is logical, then no evidence can go against it. There's not a single thing in this universe which betrays 'logic'; because logic comes from the universe. We mend logic as soon as we see that a certain rule of inference betrays intuition or natural laws. Which is why logic always wins over evidence. Because the weakness of evidence lies in the fact that most of the time evidence cannot be collected; you cannot collect evidence of a 'prediction', as it were, unless it is actually happening. If I say that Muslims are going to rule over Europe, you might ask, 'Where's the evidence for that?'; and the only appropriate evidence I can give you doesn't exist. Evidence implies 'a phenomena occurring at present'. And since most online debates concern future events (or predictions), asking for evidence is nonsense. On the other hand, I can simply show you statistics of Muslims' spread through Europe, couple that with Islamic injunctions of reproducing more and stuff like that, and give you the conclusion: Muslims are going to rule over Europe. You may say, 'Those statistics and those injunctions are evidence!'. No, they are not. And if that's what you mean by evidence, work on your semantics. Evidence... not "proof". Statistics are evidence. If you want proof for something, turn to religion. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
dakotasapphire said: Math is pure logic. Math is the idea of coming up with abstract representations of things and figuring out what kind of conclusions we can come up with. That is, math is a set of tautologies. Anyone who thinks "math is unaware of logic" must also think the predicate is unaware of grammar.Trance said: Logic is a prerequisite for rationality. You can't be rational without being logical. And logic is to math what oxygen is to humans. Math is unaware of logic until we focus on the fact that 'oh it's all logical!' exactly as we are unaware of our breathing until we choose to focus on the fact that we breathe. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Logical: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something Right you're right. It's not math. Nothing like math. It's rules we imposed on ourselves. Nothing scientific about it. Math actually needs rules and all math is all the same rules, otherwise, it doesn't work. It's something different for everyone. So, it's based on principle. But principle is based in our own minds. It's not always based on fact. So evidence brings this to the table. Only certain subjects are never able to be facts. Those can be rational. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: It depends on what you're arguing about. Empiricism is an a posteriori problem, and you cannot apply to it an a priori solution. Logic is a tool with a limited scope in that it can only tell you whether it makes sense to make a conclusion based on some premises. It cannot tell you if the premises are true. Things in this world can only be determined to be true when people sense them. That's why you need evidence. Evidence... not "proof". Statistics are evidence. If you want proof for something, turn to religion. I failed in making clear what I was actually targeting in my opening posts. So I'll do it here: Mainly the cases where you predict an event and the opponent counters, 'Well, do you have any evidence for that?' etc. So what you have said here, I already agree with it. Also, I think I made clear that 'math is unaware of logic' exactly as we are unaware of breathing. When we do math, we don't say 'we are doing logic'. Unless someone asks, 'On what basis are you doing Math?' or something like that, we won't point out logic nor would we think of it. And this is congruent with your predicate and grammar example too. (Better yet: What I mean by 'math' is the activity of doing math, not math itself) |
Trance said: When you predict an event, hopefully you're not making a formal argument out of it, and it should fall on all parties that predictions, for the most part, are not purely factual statements. The problem then becomes: people need a sense of humor and to understand the context.Mainly the cases where you predict an event and the opponent counters, 'Well, do you have any evidence for that?' etc. If this is the problem, then I share that lament. In the past, I've made, in my opinion, obvious attempts at trolling, and were met with people who were otherwise reasonably intelligent trying to contradict my statements in logical argument. They just couldn't see that it was neither the time nor the place. However, if you were making an argument, then your supporting reasons should be mostly evidence based. For example, if you were predicting the outcome of a war, then the evidence would be statistics, general sentiments, strategic outcomes, finances, etc., all of which require: 1. Evidence to demonstrate soundness. 2. Logic to make connections to their relevance. Both are necessary. Evidence is not better or worse than logic, and vice versa, but either would be useless without the other. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: Trance said: When you predict an event, hopefully you're not making a formal argument out of it, and it should fall on all parties that predictions, for the most part, are not purely factual statements. The problem then becomes: people need a sense of humor and to understand the context.Mainly the cases where you predict an event and the opponent counters, 'Well, do you have any evidence for that?' etc. If this is the problem, then I share that lament. In the past, I've made, in my opinion, obvious attempts at trolling, and were met with people who were otherwise reasonably intelligent trying to contradict my statements in logical argument. They just couldn't see that it was neither the time nor the place. However, if you were making an argument, then your supporting reasons should be mostly evidence based. For example, if you were predicting the outcome of a war, then the evidence would be statistics, general sentiments, strategic outcomes, finances, etc., all of which require: 1. Evidence to demonstrate soundness. 2. Logic to make connections to their relevance. Both are necessary. Evidence is not better or worse than logic, and vice versa, but either would be useless without the other. The problem, I think, people have is that they raise the question of evidence at the wrong 'step' of the argument. Evidence is required to build the premises but people demand evidence for the 'conclusions'. And that question can be rephrased to, 'Can you show that this is actually happening?'. What's more embarrassing is the fact that such people aren't even aware of the nature of their own question. You can just regurgitate evidence for your premises and they'll be satisfied with exactly that -- unless they are really desperate to win; in that case, they would persist with demanding evidence which shows that a future event is actually occurring right now. |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: Math is pure logic. Math is the idea of coming up with abstract representations of things and figuring out what kind of conclusions we can come up with. That is, math is a set of tautologies. Anyone who thinks "math is unaware of logic" must also think the predicate is unaware of grammar.Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Logical: a proper or reasonable way of thinking about something Right you're right. It's not math. Nothing like math. It's rules we imposed on ourselves. Nothing scientific about it. Math actually needs rules and all math is all the same rules, otherwise, it doesn't work. It's something different for everyone. So, it's based on principle. But principle is based in our own minds. It's not always based on fact. So evidence brings this to the table. Only certain subjects are never able to be facts. Those can be rational. Logic is based is not fking math. Look at sudoku. No math involved, only principles. Math is more based on worldly truths. Like certain things have a certain volume/radius, and 2 plus 2 is always 4. Because 4 is 1 1 1 1. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: There's no such thing as pi, 2, or 4 in the world. And Sudoku is discrete math. Nice fail, try again.katsucats said: Math is pure logic. Math is the idea of coming up with abstract representations of things and figuring out what kind of conclusions we can come up with. That is, math is a set of tautologies. Anyone who thinks "math is unaware of logic" must also think the predicate is unaware of grammar. Logic is based is not fking math. Look at sudoku. No math involved, only principles. Math is more based on worldly truths. Like certain things have a certain volume/radius, and 2 plus 2 is always 4. Because 4 is 1 1 1 1. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Yup folks, being accurate to the actual truth doesn't matter if you've got a cool rationale, guys! |
| Because as logical as something may be, if there's no a proof that it actually is, then it's just speculation |
 |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: There's no such thing as pi, 2, or 4 in the world. And Sudoku is discrete math. Nice fail, try again.Logic is based is not fking math. Look at sudoku. No math involved, only principles. Math is more based on worldly truths. Like certain things have a certain volume/radius, and 2 plus 2 is always 4. Because 4 is 1 1 1 1. Not the same kind of math as math. It's only similarity is problem solving. |
dakotasapphireAug 6, 2016 1:05 AM
| |
| OP, if logic is math, and we can't have our own personal logic, then why is there such a phrase like 'flawed logic.' If we have to base logic on already known truths and not our own experiences, then it's not flawed. But how much of logic is biased? Plenty of it, because logic and rationale on the internet, are basically all opinions, unless backed up in a significant way. And you can almost always tell if something is opinion. Just the way it is written. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: OP, if logic is math, and we can't have our own personal logic, then why is there such a phrase like 'flawed logic.' If we have to base logic on already known truths and not our own experiences, then it's not flawed. But how much of logic is biased? Plenty of it, because logic and rationale on the internet, are basically all opinions, unless backed up in a significant way. And you can almost always tell if something is opinion. Just the way it is written. 4x + 8y = 12 x + y = 3 That's a flawed solution to a math problem. Likewise: All cats are mammals Elephants are mammals Therefore, Elephants are cats That's how flawed logic looks like. In fact, the only way something can be 'flawed' is by it not following a certain code/norm. If logic was personal, then there'll be no such thing as 'flawed logic'. Or if there were, it'd be extremely contested exactly as the notions such as 'flawed tastes in food' etc are contested. If someone's eating literal shit, only then you can say 'woah! your tastes are bad!'. Also, your problem is that you don't know what logic actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic |
TranceAug 6, 2016 11:22 AM
| I am confident in everything I say, and there is always proof of it, but sometimes I don't bother procuring evidence because (a) my statement is obviously true, (b) the other dumb person might choose to not acknowledge it without providing proof of the contrary, and (c) it's a drag. |
"Giving one's name to someone about to die is meaningless." - Hiko Seijuurou "There are no miracles in this world; there are only accidents, inevitabilities, and what you are going to do. That is it." - Himura Yuu "A sword is a weapon. Swordsmanship is learning how to kill. No pretty words you say will change that." - Hiko Seijuurou  |
Trance said: dakotasapphire said: OP, if logic is math, and we can't have our own personal logic, then why is there such a phrase like 'flawed logic.' If we have to base logic on already known truths and not our own experiences, then it's not flawed. But how much of logic is biased? Plenty of it, because logic and rationale on the internet, are basically all opinions, unless backed up in a significant way. And you can almost always tell if something is opinion. Just the way it is written. 4x + 8y = 12 x + y = 3 That's a flawed solution to a math problem. Likewise: All cats are mammals Elephants are mammals Therefore, Elephants are cats That's how flawed logic looks like. In fact, the only way something can be 'flawed' is by it not following a certain code/norm. If logic was personal, then there'll be no such thing as 'flawed logic'. Or if there were, it'd be extremely contested exactly as the notions such as 'flawed tastes in food' etc are contested. If someone's eating literal shit, only then you can say 'woah! your tastes are bad!'. Also, your problem is that you don't know what logic actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic I know what it is, but people say 'logic' is something different than it is. I was merely confused. So, if you're saying well placed rationale, sure maybe it'd be okay over evidence. But if you're just saying someone's own opinion, no, it's not valued over evidence. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: Words have agreed upon meaning. That's why when people read dakotasapphire, they don't equate it to dakotashit.Trance said: 4x + 8y = 12 x + y = 3 That's a flawed solution to a math problem. Likewise: All cats are mammals Elephants are mammals Therefore, Elephants are cats That's how flawed logic looks like. In fact, the only way something can be 'flawed' is by it not following a certain code/norm. If logic was personal, then there'll be no such thing as 'flawed logic'. Or if there were, it'd be extremely contested exactly as the notions such as 'flawed tastes in food' etc are contested. If someone's eating literal shit, only then you can say 'woah! your tastes are bad!'. Also, your problem is that you don't know what logic actually is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic I know what it is, but people say 'logic' is something different than it is. I was merely confused. So, if you're saying well placed rationale, sure maybe it'd be okay over evidence. But if you're just saying someone's own opinion, no, it's not valued over evidence. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: Words have agreed upon meaning. That's why when people read dakotasapphire, they don't equate it to dakotashit.I know what it is, but people say 'logic' is something different than it is. I was merely confused. So, if you're saying well placed rationale, sure maybe it'd be okay over evidence. But if you're just saying someone's own opinion, no, it's not valued over evidence. Right, but words hold many meanings in english, and in other languages too. Same with the word logic. And I don't see how this has to do with opinion vs fact. It's just a random stab at my username. I don't care what you think to be honest. I was merely talking to the opener, not you who seem to know everything. (Which you probably don't because you spend loads of time on MAL forums and live in the good old state of Libtards, and brainwashed college kids) My username means blue friend. Whatever, because no one knows what Dakota means because most of you don't care to find out (oh right, i told you).. |
| |
katsucats said: Trance said: When you predict an event, hopefully you're not making a formal argument out of it, and it should fall on all parties that predictions, for the most part, are not purely factual statements. The problem then becomes: people need a sense of humor and to understand the context.Mainly the cases where you predict an event and the opponent counters, 'Well, do you have any evidence for that?' etc. If this is the problem, then I share that lament. In the past, I've made, in my opinion, obvious attempts at trolling, and were met with people who were otherwise reasonably intelligent trying to contradict my statements in logical argument. They just couldn't see that it was neither the time nor the place. However, if you were making an argument, then your supporting reasons should be mostly evidence based. For example, if you were predicting the outcome of a war, then the evidence would be statistics, general sentiments, strategic outcomes, finances, etc., all of which require: 1. Evidence to demonstrate soundness. 2. Logic to make connections to their relevance. Both are necessary. Evidence is not better or worse than logic, and vice versa, but either would be useless without the other. Well, it is the forums, none of us know when the fuck you're being sarcastic/satirical because it's written and most of the time people don't bother to put italics or bold on their posts. Regarding logic, how would we prove rules of logic without evidence? You can't build logic without basis. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: You sound angry. It's probably because you don't even know what you're talking about. Logic is the process of deriving a conclusion supposing premises are already accepted. You can't find any empirical evidence to support logic in the normal sense (we can find things such as quantum uncertainty that give us new ways of thinking). We prove logic using axioms, which are arbitrary rules that we make up in order for the logic to follow. That is, assuming these axioms, the logical conclusions must also hold true because they are tautological (mean the same thing). katsucats said: When you predict an event, hopefully you're not making a formal argument out of it, and it should fall on all parties that predictions, for the most part, are not purely factual statements. The problem then becomes: people need a sense of humor and to understand the context. If this is the problem, then I share that lament. In the past, I've made, in my opinion, obvious attempts at trolling, and were met with people who were otherwise reasonably intelligent trying to contradict my statements in logical argument. They just couldn't see that it was neither the time nor the place. However, if you were making an argument, then your supporting reasons should be mostly evidence based. For example, if you were predicting the outcome of a war, then the evidence would be statistics, general sentiments, strategic outcomes, finances, etc., all of which require: 1. Evidence to demonstrate soundness. 2. Logic to make connections to their relevance. Both are necessary. Evidence is not better or worse than logic, and vice versa, but either would be useless without the other. Well, it is the forums, none of us know when the fuck you're being sarcastic/satirical because it's written and most of the time people don't bother to put italics or bold on their posts. Regarding logic, how would we prove rules of logic without evidence? You can't build logic without basis. When someone makes an outlandish statement, it's easy to just ignore that statement unless you are socially dense, which is obviously the case here. :/ dakotasapphire said: This is a fallacy. Every language has a word for what we refer to as "logic", and they all mean the same thing, because it's universal. That words have multiple meanings:Right, but words hold many meanings in english, and in other languages too. Same with the word logic. 1. Still supposes that each meaning is commonly accepted, and not just a random conception that individuals come up with. 2. Is irrelevant to the fact that an individual meaning of one word means a particular thing. If you have some unusual interpretation of something, it's up to you to provide evidence for why we should take you seriously (i.e. not throw a political fit and expose your immaturity). I took a look at your profile and am surprised you're 20. I had you pegged for 14 at most. This wasn't meant to be an insult, it's just how you come off. What university do you attend? P.S. To be honest, until you're in your late 20s, have held a serious job for some time, have paid a few years of taxes, have cursory knowledge of economics from a university level macroeconomics class, and have a mature level of critical thinking, you have no right to even talk about red and blue, since whatever you think you know is just you mindlessly parroting the people around you. |
katsucatsAug 7, 2016 8:38 AM
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| I'll do this one last time lol. GranKuwagamon said: Logic is unique, by definition, since it's the art of finding tautologies -- statements of which are the same as the presupposed statement.Logic is not unique. GranKuwagamon said: If it's logical, it means that the conclusion is valid given the premises. In other words, the premises inevitably lead to the conclusion. It does not mean it is "right", as in it does not demonstrate the soundness of the premises. One could derive a valid conclusion based on unsound premises.The fact that you came up with some conclusion/prediction even if that seems logic does not mean it is right. GranKuwagamon said: Empirical evidence are what we use to check the soundness of the premises, not the validity of the conclusion based on those premises. Evidence or fact are what we use to measure if your logic was right or wrong. GranKuwagamon said: Facts are statements about something. They can be manipulated by bullshit and fallacies to mean something different, or logic to derive another fact that mean the same thing.Even facts themselves can be manipulated through logic. GranKuwagamon said: Things can be proven without empirical evidence (e.g. a hypothetical syllogism).Nothing is true unless proven. GranKuwagamon said: I think the problem here is when you're in high school, your teachers impress upon you that there is a right way to solve every single problem. In my mind, you must be a product of the system that teaches 6*3 is 6 stacks of 3 and not 3 stacks of 6 or something like that. In actuality, math is as non-linear as it gets, because all the rules in math lead to the same thing. You can use algebra to solve a system of equations, or plug them into a matrix and do different kinds of linear transformations, like the gaussian elimination, or plot them in 3D space and find the intersect.Think of chess game for example or the game town of salem, that unlike maths don't follow a linear logic. GranKuwagamon said: Math is logic. Axioms are presuppositions in math and the same they are in logic. For instance, the identity axiom 1=1, or the commutative axiom of addition -- if we swap the number of trees on two continents, there will still be the same number of trees.And even maths lacks logic. There is things that are called axioms, they are what really matters. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| "Men spreading their legs on empty train seats because they have testicles and different hip structures is actually a patriarchal microaggression used to intimidate and oppress women and enforce the capitalist heteropatriarchy" "Huh... can you back that up?"  |
 |
Red_Keys said: "Men spreading their legs on empty train seats because they have testicles and different hip structures is actually a patriarchal microaggression used to intimidate and oppress women and enforce the capitalist heteropatriarchy" "Huh... can you back that up?" How will you go about providing evidence for this though? I mean, what kind of information do you expect? |
| ikr? And these people always use the wrong kind of evidence. They link an article where a scientist agrees with them. But there are scientists who disagree as well. That isn't evidence. These people always seem to be narcissistic. They are usually the ones that will go on a religious YT video then go say something like "lol God isn't real, no evidence!" They aren't too smart. These people that require evidence to believe something are hypocrites. They don't even have evidence for half the stuff that they believe. |
 |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: You sound angry. It's probably because you don't even know what you're talking about. Logic is the process of deriving a conclusion supposing premises are already accepted. You can't find any empirical evidence to support logic in the normal sense (we can find things such as quantum uncertainty that give us new ways of thinking). We prove logic using axioms, which are arbitrary rules that we make up in order for the logic to follow. That is, assuming these axioms, the logical conclusions must also hold true because they are tautological (mean the same thing). Well, it is the forums, none of us know when the fuck you're being sarcastic/satirical because it's written and most of the time people don't bother to put italics or bold on their posts. Regarding logic, how would we prove rules of logic without evidence? You can't build logic without basis. When someone makes an outlandish statement, it's easy to just ignore that statement unless you are socially dense, which is obviously the case here. :/ dakotasapphire said: This is a fallacy. Every language has a word for what we refer to as "logic", and they all mean the same thing, because it's universal. That words have multiple meanings:Right, but words hold many meanings in english, and in other languages too. Same with the word logic. 1. Still supposes that each meaning is commonly accepted, and not just a random conception that individuals come up with. 2. Is irrelevant to the fact that an individual meaning of one word means a particular thing. If you have some unusual interpretation of something, it's up to you to provide evidence for why we should take you seriously (i.e. not throw a political fit and expose your immaturity). I took a look at your profile and am surprised you're 20. I had you pegged for 14 at most. This wasn't meant to be an insult, it's just how you come off. What university do you attend? P.S. To be honest, until you're in your late 20s, have held a serious job for some time, have paid a few years of taxes, have cursory knowledge of economics from a university level macroeconomics class, and have a mature level of critical thinking, you have no right to even talk about red and blue, since whatever you think you know is just you mindlessly parroting the people around you. Right. I decided to not attend a university due to it being pointless considering it's all brain washing now. Also, why bother? They're charging for everything, and where's the guarantee you'll get a job afterwards? College AND High school don't prepare you for the real world, and the only people getting hired out of college, got the degree but were working their asses off doing something related/ not related (and hard work). I've met plenty of 24-27 year olds, and some of my co workers are in their 40s. They don't seem any smarter/ or even maturer than me. Hell, one of them got in a fight yesterday, so what's this about needing to grow up more? People don't grow up past age 25. They're set in their ways. I don't need to experience more hard work (which I am a fking dish washer for gods sake how is anything harder, especially when we're short handed all the time and we get slammed every day with hundreds of dishes and pans) to know the real world is and will be difficult. I've been working a hard job for awhile now. And before that an even harder one. You think I said that about college kids because I am one and know them? No, I just know this generation of kids is full of sht (I had an 18 year old co-worker, and the difference between our work ethic was staggering, he'd just slack off, take his breaks without signing out, and even take breaks when he wasn't supposed to, to play pokemon go) and so was the one before it, and You'd never catch me going to a 'university' or state school. At best, maybe a community college/culinary school, or maybe even something specifically for electricians. I wasn't throwing a fit, I was merely asking the OP some questions because I didn't 'get' the point yet, and you butt in throwing insults. That was an A and B conversation, and next time, C your way out of it. Now, I don't remember talking about red and blue. Are we talking about that reference to the matrix? Okay? Must I understand all pop culture references? This was a discussion, I had questions, why do I need evidence to ask questions? Since when was a hypothesis ever correct until It had substantial backing of evidence? I can make theories all I want, it may not mean it's correct, but I'm just trying to figure it out on my own. Regarding your personality type. My guess is you're an INTJ right? It's ill expectation to think someone like me an INFp (which why would you even bother to find out that we're not all just cookie cutter and believe and think the same thing as you), could actually get real world logic, or even what logic means, because people like me only learn how a word feels (seriously this is my greatest way of remembering something till I research it again) and somehow this has gotten me through life fine. Regarding the economy, you don't need a degree in economics to understand a little bit about it. Hell the degree is probably half useless. You can pick up bits and pieces reading economic newspapers (from all sides of the spectrum) online. Please, tell me why something a simple as knowing things aren't working for a person because of the economy needs a degree in economics? Because you're getting one? Well, you'll just find out the foundation is crumbling, and the economy is getting stilted up by the government. They're directly linked. The government caused us to crash and burn, but is somehow keeping us afloat. It doesn't mean it'll last forever. Check out the debt clock. Our economy is in far worse shape than even the 1930s. I could go on and on about many factors, but you need evidence. If you're interested I can spout many a source. That is way off topic though. Why bring up economics in a 'logic vs evidence' debate? Regarding socially denseness, I'm plenty that way, and so are most people on this site. I'm sorry if I was just trying to wrap my head around the OPs ideas. I guess I need to stay away from forums where you're posting. You're a total pit bull and jump at every opportunity to make someone feel bad. |
| |
| There's better, more interesting things to do than trying to disprove someone's opinions on the internet. Talk to a friend you don't usually get to speak to (or would that be an acquaintance?), write a book, read a book, go to the movies. Watch an anime...anyone got anything else to help? |
| ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴロゴロゴロ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ ゴゴゴゴゴゴ |
dakotasapphire said: I think this pretty much describes everything you've said in a nutshell.Right. I decided to not attend a university due to it being pointless considering it's all brain washing now. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: I think this pretty much describes everything you've said in a nutshell.Right. I decided to not attend a university due to it being pointless considering it's all brain washing now. Thanks sir lib tard for not reading anything else in my post, and You shall always be known to me as mr katsucraps. |
| |
| After all this arguing over whats best, i'm going to say evidence is nothing without sound rationale that interprets it, but sound rationale isn't anything without proper back up. So, why not come to the conclusion that we can't have one without the other. |
| |
dakotasapphire said: Yep, knowledge is pretty liberal. You've nullified yourself. Have fun working at McDonald's. Someone who deliberately chooses to remain ignorant only insults and farts on the people he tries to get the attention of. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't take yourself seriously? Facepalm. Such deliberate epic failure.katsucats said: Thanks sir lib tard for not reading anything else in my post, and You shall always be known to me as mr katsucraps.I think this pretty much describes everything you've said in a nutshell. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: dakotasapphire said: Yep, knowledge is pretty liberal. You've nullified yourself. Have fun working at McDonald's. Someone who deliberately chooses to remain ignorant only insults and farts on the people he tries to get the attention of. Why should anyone take you seriously when you can't take yourself seriously? Facepalm. Such deliberate epic failure.Thanks sir lib tard for not reading anything else in my post, and You shall always be known to me as mr katsucraps. I deliberately said I was going to go to a trade school, jesus can you even read? No I shall not work at mcdonalds. Knowledge has nothing to do with your political stance, and I don't see urbanites knowing much of anything. |
| |
Trance said: Here's my declaration: A well-reasoned rationale beats evidence any day. Because if your argument is logical, then no evidence can go against it. There's not a single thing in this universe which betrays 'logic'; because logic comes from the universe. I disagree. Why is it that you think that in academic circles people have to prove any hypothesis that they make? It is because what we think is logical may not be correct. This is because there is always the possibility of some unknown factor that will mess up our entire argument and this is why we need evidence or proof that we are correct in our assumption. There are several examples I can give you from my field of study (Computer science) where theories that were logically sound were not practical. One somewhat easier to explain example is the famous binary search bug (Spoilered in case you don't know what it is) There are several other examples I can give you but this was the simplest one I could think of. |
purp said: Trance said: Here's my declaration: A well-reasoned rationale beats evidence any day. Because if your argument is logical, then no evidence can go against it. There's not a single thing in this universe which betrays 'logic'; because logic comes from the universe. I disagree. Why is it that you think that in academic circles people have to prove any hypothesis that they make? It is because what we think is logical may not be correct. This is because there is always the possibility of some unknown factor that will mess up our entire argument and this is why we need evidence or proof that we are correct in our assumption. There are several examples I can give you from my field of study (Computer science) where theories that were logically sound were not practical. One somewhat easier to explain example is the famous binary search bug (Spoilered in case you don't know what it is) There are several other examples I can give you but this was the simplest one I could think of. I'm talking in context of debates and arguments. You might wish to read my exchange with katsucats. That'll help clarify. |
More topics from this board
» How much time do you think it would take before no one misses you anymore if you stopped logging in on MAL? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Yesterday |
71 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» what screamer image scares you the most?TheBlockernator - 24 minutes ago |
0 |
by TheBlockernator
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
» Where do you guys meet people irl?Cneq - 12 hours ago |
4 |
by GANCH
»»
29 minutes ago |
|
» It is becoming impossible to liveAllAlone8 - Yesterday |
12 |
by APTminer
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Would you prefer if the mods took part in forum discussions, or do you think it's better when they stay in the background?fleurbleue - 7 hours ago |
24 |
by Cute_Marseille
»»
50 minutes ago |