Diuretic

I don't use formal logic because I don't understand it (right brain dominance, I can't handle equations). I do like to try and work through ideas though.
 
Beefy said:
Well see if you can figure out this one. It delves into a mathematical problem the puts Bell's theorem to shame:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=3425
Click to expand...

Sorry, me and mathematics are worse than oil and water. One repels the other, though I'm not sure if it's me doing the repelling. Why would I try to work on a mathematical formula with my abysmal inability to work through even the most basic arithmetical problem? I appreciate the offer but I'd not be able to add anything to the debate.
 
Diuretic said:
Fair enough, but why? I can't do formal logic, I'm hopeless at mathematics, bad luck for me, I have to try and work things out as best I can.
Click to expand...
Any valid logical argument can be parsed out formally. That doesn't mean you, personally, necessarily have to but any argument that can't be isn't valid.

If you, personally, really can't make formal logic work for you -- and I'm skeptical but never didactic ;) -- that's simply a handicap. It means you can't test your arguments for yourself. That, in turn, just means you have to be a better listener than most, I suppose.

I've known many people who have an innate sense of what's logically valid and what's not without the ability to parse a syllogism. Such a thing can trip you up badly but it can also be trained up by exercise.

In practice, most politicians and pundits don't make arguments that are logically fallacious so much as they play fast and loose with their premises. Even a rock solid foundation in logic -- such as Trog and AnyOldIron have, for example -- can't help you if you fall into a convincing con artist's shaky assumptions.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Any valid logical argument can be parsed out formally. That doesn't mean you, personally, necessarily have to but any argument that can't be isn't valid.

If you, personally, really can't make formal logic work for you -- and I'm skeptical but never didactic ;) -- that's simply a handicap. It means you can't test your arguments for yourself. That, in turn, just means you have to be a better listener than most, I suppose.

I've known many people who have an innate sense of what's logically valid and what's not without the ability to parse a syllogism. Such a thing can trip you up badly but it can also be trained up by exercise.

In practice, most politicians and pundits don't make arguments that are logically fallacious so much as they play fast and loose with their premises. Even a rock solid foundation in logic -- such as Trog and AnyOldIron have, for example -- can't help you if you fall into a convincing con artist's shaky assumptions.
Click to expand...
Well that was a mouthful, but I will say, I don't feel comfortable posting on this site. It's not friendly to those that disagree, though not disrespectfully.
 
Runyon said:
Well that was a mouthful, but I will say, I don't feel comfortable posting on this site. It's not friendly to those that disagree, though not disrespectfully.
Click to expand...

Well, I think you're cool anyway. Certainly there's a lot of personality clashes here, and I'm guilty of bomb throwing as well, but I tend to think that there are some great nuggets of wisdom available here periodically.

Its nameless, faceless discussion for the most part, and perhaps that why it can become so impersonal and volitile. But its also why its fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top