Xavier Target
Old Alpha
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 787
- Location
- Under the I-96 overpass getting free wifi from Pan
- Avatar Name
- Xavier Target Technosplurg
Eggs are for breakfast, hence they must come first. Chicken is for Dinner. Duh.
The chicken-and-egg scenario is not a suitable example to take, if we are going to discuss this point; so if you really want to, i suggest you start a new thread.
But I totally disagree: a discussion which limits itself to a basis of rational thinking. and excludes everything else, is pretty damned useless in most contexts.
Even most (perhaps all) significant advances in science were kickstarted by a flash of intuition (which is not rational).
Rational thinking is just one of the mental tools at our disposal, and not a very sharp one at that, in most cases.
Just look at how many conflicting ideas are amenable to rational support
Eggs are for breakfast, hence they must come first. Chicken is for Dinner. Duh.
The chicken-and-egg scenario is not a suitable example to take, if we are going to discuss this point; so if you really want to, i suggest you start a new thread.
Heh. Heck. my intuitiion is a little lame, atm. Can't come up with a suuggestionHell no, not yet another thread with you and me discussing ad nauseam!
But well, go ahead and suggest a topic you find more suited - i might bite...
Discussion IS logics, Discussion IS rational argueing - everything else is not a discussion (or well, not a fruitful one).
If you derive an argument from an emotion or belief, everyone can just "agree" or "disagree", but not dispute it.
A somewhat minor point. perhaps, but a really fruitful discussion would consist in intuitive people throwing their ideas into the ring, and the more logical people picking them up and either supporting or negating them. People who excel at both intuition and logic are pretty rare. Also, it often takes a flash of intuition to discover the flaw in a comminly-held belief. So a really good discussion is bound to have elements of both.There, you said it yourself: Kickstarted by intuition - if you want to discuss it, you have to stick to facts - not saying that intuition cannot be the source for ideas, but before you "throw them into the ring", you'll have to apply some logics and turn your intuition into an actual argument, otherwise it is just belief (see above).
As I observed above, rational thinking is not everybody's forte. It's a very blunt instument in some people's hands (but you'll never keep those people out of discussions, will you?). Intuition, in general, might be said be sharper because its faster, of course. It can take years to develop credible rational support for an idea that you intuitively grasped. Sometimes,. when faced with a decision, its better to go with the intuitive idea, rather than dismiss it. I'm sure there must be times in your life when you really wish you had (You're a very unusual individual, if not)If rational thinking is not a sharp tool, what is?
Aaah, this is where you come from!
Well, there is logics, the pure white light of indisputeable truth - and then we have pseudo-logics, which is way more common, usually (ab)used like pretty much every unfair discussion technique, to make someone believe in something that is not true - what you see most is i.e. that someone states two commonly known facts nobody would dispute - and then he deducts some utter bullcrap - and people swallow it, because it started off oh so logical!!
Indeed. I was just checking with Wizzszz that he really was happy to see his own thread escape his clearly defined parameters, like thatHowever, if you want to turn the chicken and egg debate into an emotional or moral or ethics debate example, while it is obviously not such a debate, you can turn it into one with a little bit of creativity. .
A somewhat minor point. perhaps, but a really fruitful discussion would consist in intuitive people throwing their ideas into the ring, and the more logical people picking them up and either supporting or negating them. People who excel at both intuition and logic are pretty rare. Also, it often takes a flash of intuition to discover the flaw in a comminly-held belief. So a really good discussion is bound to have elements of both.
As I observed above, rational thinking is not everybody's forte. It's a very blunt instument in some people's hands (but you'll never keep those people out of discussions, will you?). Intuition, in general, might be said be sharper because its faster, of course. It can take years to develop credible rational support for an idea that you intuitively grasped. Sometimes,. when faced with a decision, its better to go with the intuitive idea, rather than dismiss it. I'm sure there must be times in your life when you really wish you had (You're a very unusual individual, if not)
You're quite right, as far as you go. That's one of the dangers of an over-dependancy on logic. "logic" can be used to lead people down the garden path. But that's not always deliberate. You also have people who rweally do believe their own bullcrap, who think that they are being very logical, and who look down with disdain on anyone who takes a different POV. These are the "over-rational" people that I mentioned. The fact is that nobody is entirely rational, but some people identify almost exclusively with the rational side of their mind, and suppress or deny everything else. The result is that everything that pops into their head is either assumed to be rational, or else rejected out of hand. Since rationality can't make effective snap judgements like that, but the guy's self-image is at stake, you get really thin, but stubbonly adherered to reasoning, with a lot of pertinent marterial ignored. Worse, the repressed emotional material has an absolute field day, because it will get out in sorts of sneaky ways; and if the personality is blind to this stuff, then it won;t be subject to the usual rational controls.
And logic , btw is decidedly not "the pure white light of indisputeable truth" if such a thing even exists.
Take mathematics. (can we find a more logical disciplinee than that?) It begins with a set (or rather several sets, to be picky about it) of rigorous axioms, and proceeds to deduce a whole mass of conclusions from those axioms, using strict logic at every step, We can pretty sure (unless our reasoning is faulty) that if those axioms are true then all the rest of it it true.
The ancient Greeks believed that the Euclid's axioms of geometry were "self-evident truths". This survives as a dictionary definition, but modern maths has moved way beyond that simplistic view, and realised that axioms, in general, are not necessarily true at all, but quite simply unprovable. In general, if you can show that axioms are true of some kind of real-world problem, then you can confidently apply a whole body of maths to that problem (eg the surface of the earth conforms well enough to Euclid's axioms, that you safely apply Euclidian Geometry to it ...if you take a small enough section). However there's, no clear indispuable set of axioms just a number of alternative axiomatic systems, with mathemetiicians endlessly debating their completeness etc
Enough about maths, when it comes to anything less rigorous, we're really up the spout, because how ever "logical" people are, they almost never define their basic assumptions (or axioms) or even realise that they are making them. The result is that you can make any old crap appear logical, to those who share your basic assumptions (yourself included of course) In the average forum debate, you'll never pin down all those pernicious assumptions and question them
Fortunately we have our irrational faculties (intuition and feeling) to help us police this process and stop it getting too far out of hand. Of course, these are not infallible either. We have the rational side to curb the excesses of the irrartional side, and vice versa. That's how a healthy human psyche functions.
A somewhat minor point. perhaps, but a really fruitful discussion would consist in intuitive people throwing their ideas into the ring, and the more logical people picking them up and either supporting or negating them. People who excel at both intuition and logic are pretty rare. Also, it often takes a flash of intuition to discover the flaw in a comminly-held belief. So a really good discussion is bound to have elements of both.
People are also way too attached to their more "logical" propositions, as I explained further down. Nobody's perfect. Also, note that I didn't disagree with your point about using logic to prove or disprove, did I? I said that since, generally, some excel at logic, others at intuition, you get best results when the two groups work together, rather than one group (the logicians) excluding the other group, which is what you advocate in effect (not directly excliding ofc, but insisting that they play to their weakness- logic- rather than their strength; which makes them look like obstructive asses if they buy that deal)This is where it blows up already, people love their "intuitive ideas" way too much to let logics get in the way.
Intuition should only be used to set up a theorem, to prove or disprove a theorem, only logics should be applied.
As I observed above, rational thinking is not everybody's forte. It's a very blunt instument in some people's hands (but you'll never keep those people out of discussions, will you?). Intuition, in general, might be said be sharper because its faster, of course. It can take years to develop credible rational support for an idea that you intuitively grasped. Sometimes,. when faced with a decision, its better to go with the intuitive idea, rather than dismiss it. I'm sure there must be times in your life when you really wish you had (You're a very unusual individual, if not)
The intellect is an organic tool, Wizzszz, It doesn't come ready machine-tooled out of a box. How sharp yours is depends on how far you develop it. In contrast, a scalpel is a scalpel is a scalpel and I'm sure they're all pretty damned sharp. No comparison.A scalpel is a very sharp tool, and a surgeon will be able to get the max out of it - that some people are not able to handle a scalpel does not mean a scalpel is not a sharp tool - and you are basically saying that a scalpel is a blunt tool, because not everyone's a surgeon? Sorry, that doesn't make much sense.
Intuition in contrast is no tool at all, it can only be the initial spark, or the source for new arguments, but these must be always exposed to logics before you know if those arguments hold any water.
You're quite right, as far as you go. That's one of the dangers of an over-dependancy on logic. "logic" can be used to lead people down the garden path. But that's not always deliberate. You also have people who rweally do believe their own bullcrap, who think that they are being very logical, and who look down with disdain on anyone who takes a different POV. These are the "over-rational" people that I mentioned. The fact is that nobody is entirely rational, but some people identify almost exclusively with the rational side of their mind, and suppress or deny everything else. The result is that everything that pops into their head is either assumed to be rational, or else rejected out of hand. Since rationality can't make effective snap judgements like that, but the guy's self-image is at stake, you get really thin, but stubbonly adherered to reasoning, with a lot of pertinent marterial ignored. Worse, the repressed emotional material has an absolute field day, because it will get out in sorts of sneaky ways; and if the personality is blind to this stuff, then it won;t be subject to the usual rational controls.
Dunno what to say here, you are painting the world in black and white only, it's not like people who strictly apply logics are incapable of finding an intuitive approach and vice versa.
And logic , btw is decidedly not "the pure white light of indisputeable truth" if such a thing even exists.
Take mathematics. (can we find a more logical disciplinee than that?) It begins with a set (or rather several sets, to be picky about it) of rigorous axioms, and proceeds to deduce a whole mass of conclusions from those axioms, using strict logic at every step, We can pretty sure (unless our reasoning is faulty) that if those axioms are true then all the rest of it it true.
where did I say otherwise? and where did i say we should dispense with logic? Nowhere.Once again you contradict yourself here - no logics means no axioms, no logics means no math at all...
Math is a derived discipline, derived from logics, pretty much like every science - every other way to gain knowledge is (at best) fuzzy.
Right, But, please, not let;s set up logic as God. Its a set of simple rules, yes. It enables us to move from hypothesis to conclusion , yes, and to communicate and debate that process. I don't think we should get into a philosophical debate as to whether the rules of logic are irrefutable (I'm happy to accept,that for most practical purposes, that's certainly true, just wouldn't wanna make a Holy Cow of it). If you base an argument on dispoven fact, all conclusions are void, indeed. Note, it doesn't foillow that all conclusions are untrue, just unsubstantiated. Note also, its hard to tell just how many unprioven "facts" people are basing their arguments on. Read Albert Camus ( I love the guy, nonetheless) or almost any other bleedin philoshopher! All very logical, but if you stop to question every questionable statement, you'll never get to the bottom of the page. And these are intelligent people who pretty much set out to identify and state their assumptions. What hope for the rest of us? So... how the heck shall we choose our philosophy?Logics follows incredibly simple rules, unlike math, and is therefor indisputeable.
(i.e. if something is true, it cannot be false at the same time, if you base an argument on a disproven fact, all derived arguments are void, too - but it is LOGICS that defines exactly these rules!)
The ancient Greeks believed that the Euclid's axioms of geometry were "self-evident truths". This survives as a dictionary definition, but modern maths has moved way beyond that simplistic view, and realised that axioms, in general, are not necessarily true at all, but quite simply unprovable. In general, if you can show that axioms are true of some kind of real-world problem, then you can confidently apply a whole body of maths to that problem (eg the surface of the earth conforms well enough to Euclid's axioms, that you safely apply Euclidian Geometry to it ...if you take a small enough section). However there's, no clear indispuable set of axioms just a number of alternative axiomatic systems, with mathemetiicians endlessly debating their completeness etc
Dunno what you're aiming at here - an axiom is just that, an unproven theorem - math can be pretty fuzzy at times, too: i.e. knowing pi to the 20th decimal place was enough to make manned missions to the moon - it all depends on how much precision is needed to complete a certain task.
Well ,I won't let myself feel too flatterered by that statement. I suspect that you really mean "beyond" or "beneath" you.But why this makes logics a blunt instrument is above me, sorry
Enough about maths, when it comes to anything less rigorous, we're really up the spout, because how ever "logical" people are, they almost never define their basic assumptions (or axioms) or even realise that they are making them. The result is that you can make any old crap appear logical, to those who share your basic assumptions (yourself included of course) In the average forum debate, you'll never pin down all those pernicious assumptions and question them
Yeah, let's not strive for logics, because we will never be able to apply logics everywhere all of the time... i beg to differ.
Fortunately we have our irrational faculties (intuition and feeling) to help us police this process and stop it getting too far out of hand. Of course, these are not infallible either. We have the rational side to curb the excesses of the irrartional side, and vice versa. That's how a healthy human psyche functions.
So, too much logics = bad, and feelings and intuition are there to stop us from applying too much evil logics?
I couldn't disagree more.
Actually, you two are doing a very good job of demonstrating how threads escalate.
About now is where friends or others who agree with one side more than the other should hop in and start pounding on the two of you.
Logics follows incredibly simple rules, unlike math, and is therefor indisputeable.
(i.e. if something is true, it cannot be false at the same time, if you base an argument on a disproven fact, all derived arguments are void, too - but it is LOGICS that defines exactly these rules!)
[...]
Yeah, let's not strive for logics, because we will never be able to apply logics everywhere all of the time... i beg to differ.
[...]
So, too much logics = bad, and feelings and intuition are there to stop us from applying too much evil logics?
I couldn't disagree more.
i think therefore i am
Like watching a three legged turtle swim in circles .. until it dies.
So what? So you didn't know the difference between "discuss" and "debate" (which I naturally assumed you did, since those topics are so dear to your heart ). And you asked about that , and I told you (and said that it wasn't that bad a mistake, because some engish people make the same mistake) and it was all perfectly amicable. Then i went on to assume that you knew the meaning of most of the other words that you're using, because you actually do speak English better than the average native; and nothing whatsoever about your writing style suggests that you're struggling and that you really wish that people would patronise you by making things more simple (in fact, I'm pretty sure that would offend you).Jay, you perfectly know that english aint my first language...
With every new post you seem to make an effort to post even more text - and meanwhile, this wall of text appears to serve hardly any other purpose than to splice hairs, you trying to show off your intellectual abilities or you trying to lecture me ("Look it up!" and "I suspect that you really mean "beyond" or "beneath" you.", "Discussion v. Debate")
Crap. I simply wouldn't enter into a discussion in German, period.Maybe look up "arrogance" - do you really think you are the one to lecture me? My english aint perfect, it will never be - how's your german?
And do you even know what the terms and phrases you use here in abundance really mean?
Seeing how often you contradicted yourself in the last posts sure looks like you copy random snippets from wikipedia, w/o understanding what they say...
I grow tired of the style of your posts, let alone the sheer amount of words you use to express a simple circumstance - you can intersperse as much yin yang, Camus and latin words as you want, it will not really help you - more words will not make a bad argument any better.
(Especially the yin yang thingie puzzles me a bit - it sounds like your only point is "For the sake of balance within our universe: Against, no matter what!!")
Time you let others have a say, too - this thread was meant to point out why discussions are bound to escalate, it was not meant to become your personal roadshow - i know it has hit you hard that i didn't support your friend Dalas, despite your obsessive efforts - but you now show the same anancastic behaviour here, so let us please leave it at that now.
However, you have proven that not all threads are bound to escalate - some drown in words which pretty quickly solidify into some kind of concrete-like monument of "posts with too many words".
People who excel at both intuition and logic are pretty rare. Also, it often takes a flash of intuition to discover the flaw in a comminly-held belief.
If you base an argument on disproven fact, all conclusions are void, indeed.
Well, I've taken the trouble to clarify my meaning this once, but I doubt that it really needed clarifying, and I doubt that I'll be led into doing it again. For all your lauding of "logic", you;ve barely troubled to use it, but fallen back on cheap debating tactics instead.
If that's the best that you're willing to do, I think we'd better just agree to disagree, don't you?
The big flaw with a list such as Silverice's is that it consists entirely of advice to individual posters, Now , I don't think that we suffer from a deficiency of good advice ; just that people will be human and ignore the advice.
TBH, this is a low blow. Wizz is actually arguing against the points you're making, and not attacking you personally. What is this quote above? Nothing more than an elaborate personal attack, from the sounds of it. "I took the time to explain myself for you, you poor little dummy, even though my points are SO obvious that they didn't really need explaining." This is the kind of thing that this thread started out discussing... how can we prevent the escalation of a thread to the point where it gets locked? If everyone dropped the high-and-mighty attitude and spoke to each other with respect, regardless of whether they agree or not, instead of trying to provoke each other to anger, then the majority of discussions would be more fruitful.
How do you expect me (or anyone) to respond to that tactic?
there are forms of proposition which are logical true, yet false. i.e. People drink more cold drinks in the summer; cars over-heat in the summer; therefore drinking cold drinks make cars over-heat. so much of cause/correlation errors are due to this incorrect use of logic, and that is just an example of one type of logical error. we need intuition or empirical knowledge to tell us when logic is wrong. logic is not infallible, as much it is a very useful and powerful tool.
I think we'd better not hold debates at all.
A discussion is not about "who wins" - at least it should not be:
Discussions should serve the purpose to find the truth, a final result everyone can agree on.
It is done by exchanging and weighting (verifying/falsifying) pro and contra arguments - together.
Who came up with a particular point is totally irrelevant.
My God, I have more fun reading these forums then actually playing
I didn't read this whole thread but, does anybody know where's a good place to loot pixie feetguards?
...
cheap debating tactics ...
.....
Yeah, let's not strive for logics, because we will never be able to apply logics everywhere all of the time... i beg to differ.
....
Reductio ad absurdum (reduction to the absurd) is a very poor debate tactic, even more so when one is defending "logic", because it is a logical fallacy that assumes only an "either/or" position. In the vast majority of discussions there exist many intermediate positions between "all" and "nothing". Ironically, its main appeal is "emotional", which would be another reason to avoid using it in defence of "logic".
Perfect intuition is as effective as perfect logic, because they would both arrive at the same conclusion, even if there is no absolute truth to a matter. It behoves us to exercise all our faculties, of which logic and intuition are but two.
This is another great point.
Pity it was buried in the middle of another personal attack.
I think we'd better leave it to others to judge which of us ignored it (if that matters).
jay