Logic

You really don't realize it's being quoted every time do you.

You're the type of person that stands in front of products and asks people where they are.

Heh, so you think by me pointing out the universal truth of one should not follow one's wn advice if they're wrong as some sort of admission that I am wrong? Especially when I asked for clarification of who was being talked about in the first place?

You're the kind of person who tells that person "It's right there you fucktard" when they point out it's not the right brand, and that the spot they're looking at is empty, and they want to know if you have any in the back room. Then you stay angry at their stupidity despite them not having done anything stupid in the first place.

Are you so unable to understand what other people are saying that you missed the obvious point that she was referencing you?

Which is why it's funny because you didn't realize it and went on to insult yourself.

Which is why you fail no matter how much of a false pretentious air you put up. If the person trying to teach logic can't even understand obvious cues what hope do they have at actual critical thinking?

Thanks I'd skip any information you try to present when you can't accomplish simple tasks.

She didn't quote me and there were other conversations going on. It wasn't clear, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume everything's about me.

Also, I still didn't insult myself. : /

It's interesting really, you can't present any coherent disagreements with me simply insults. I mean, it's cool, some people can't help but be obtuse dickheads, and you're obviously one of those people, so congratulations on that, but trust me, I'm not going to be heartbroken that you're going toi 'skip' my information. I don't feel I'm losing any real intellectual input there. ;)

Are you seriously saying that you are so incapable of critical thinking that the only way you realize thing is when someone points them out directly to you?

My god, go out and actually learn something before you try preaching about logic. You should be utterly ashamed.

you know when I said I doubt if you stopped reading my posts I would lose any actual intellectual input? Yeah, thanks for illustrating why.

Not only did you completely misunderstand what I was saying, but you simply re stated your opinion on the situation, and said that because I do not agree, I lack critical thinking skills(a consistant problem with you it seems...).

Seriously, if all you have to say is, "You lack critical thinking skills, go read a book!" or something to that effect, a good idea would be to simply not post, because all you're doing is showing how much of an asshole you are. :)

Dear god, did you really just use emoticons?

Yeah I'm an asshole. If you hadn't grasp that I would be completely questioning your ability to see anything.

Do you feel accomplish by it? Do you really think that pointing it out changes the fact that you are showing time and time again that you have no ability to be teaching about logic? That the only thing you're capable of is looking at places like wikipedia and trying your best to regurgitate what people in youtube videos say?

It's so painfully obvious that you don't fully understand half of what you're posting about that it's not even funny.

Flaser: Sorry, but the whole Less Wrong thing just makes me think of a horrible fanfic writer who is way too full of himself.

Oh of course, lest you think I'm actually taking you seriously. ;)



So you would say your own assholishness is simply self evident? Good to know. At least you're under no illusions that you're superior to me in any way.



Can you point out what I said in my original post that was wrong? No? Oh good, then your entire argument is moot, because clearly I CAN come up with a coherent lesson on logic. The thing is, you haven't done anything but insult me the entire time we've been in communication, so you'll understand if I take your criticisms of me with a laugh, as you haven't shown that you have any of the critical thinking skils you accuse me of lacking, nor do you have the ability to coherently argue against anything I've said without simply spouting off more insults. In the long run, you're the one looking like an idiot.



If it's so painfully obvious, you can demonstrate it pretty easily, right? Well? You haven't done so yet.



Much like you are?

You offer nothing because you offer no information or insight because you cannot critically think.

As you cannot process information, anything I have to offer goes to waste.

There is no benefit to continuing this charade of a discussion with you.

Possibly with Flaser as he does have some insight into things I am a little curious about.

I do like the ideal of Boolean Logic as it actually inherently shows how a good debate would work. With one group instituting a premise and with the second group attempting a rebuttal that has a negation and a counter premise.

Though I like to think the more important side of logic is new information and the ability to process it. Without it you couldn't forward logic to begin with.

Viciously circular. I offer nothing, because I offer nothing, because I cannot critically think. How do you know I can't critically think? Well simple, because I offer nothing.

Seriously, is that the best you've got?



I agrre, especially since you have no intention of putting forth any new information other than a constant circle of insults.



Logic...is a way to do exactly that. One uses logic to process new information constantly through simple premises and conclusions.

you think it would be effective to learn to process information, in order for logic to move forward, but using logic is exactly HOW one processes information.

Is this your idea of putting in new information? Defining what debate is, and saying a form of logic is inherently debate, while giving a nonsensical statement of using logic to forward logic, while not acknowledging that one is using logic to do that?

God you would HATE modal logic.

Wait a second. By saying that a premise is valid, you are making a claim. If another person rejects that claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why your premise is valid. You say in your other thread that the burden of proof is always on one who is making a claim, so it would be on you. If the other person has an alternative premise, yes they would need to demonstrate why their premise should be considered valid, but according to what you say in your other thread, the default position would be to accept neither claim and thus accept neither premise as valid.

You don't just get to throw out any premises you like and put the burden of proof on your opponents to prove you wrong.



Except that it often isn't. No one uses an exclusively mathematics based approach in religious debates, or it at least is rarely seen.



This is actually an illogical argument in favor of logic. Now it isn't a bad argument persay, but is a usefulness/convenience argument rather than a logical argument. However, as you point out, logic can't prove itself. It requires axioms that are accepted, for whatever reason(common sense is a common reason). Thus, the creation and use of logic derives from some kind of thought other than logical thought. Given how useful logic is, the nonlogical thought that created it has demonstrated itself to produce at least one useful product.



That's a misinterpretation of my argument. A premise needs to have been PROVED to be considered valid and sound. However, a premise needs to be agreed upon to be useful for persuasion in a debate. A sound logical argument won't be convincing to someone who disagrees with the premises, regardless of whether they are valid or not. You would first need to demonstrate convincingly to that person why they should accept the premises you are using or your argument will be lost on them.




This is ridiculous. Premise 1 is to start, ill defined. Second, the system of logic and its axioms were defined through nonlogical means(you basically admit this earlier in your post). Based on our observations of the world, our common sense, etc, we decided to create a system that we thought would be useful. The system is useful, but the premise you suggest here is not logically sound. You can't logically prove that it should be accepted, outside of supporting it with further unsubstantiated/axiomatic claims.

Premise 2 is clearly false because I am arguing with you. Maybe you meant to state it in some other way.

The conclusion is ill defined. How accurate?



Maybe you find Descartes argument convincing, but philosophy continues to address this question and will do so forever in all probability. Descartes's argument has been criticized by numerous philosophers. You can go read about it if you are interested. Kierkegaard's critique might be up your alley.



I have in fact repeatedly done this. So have you, by making use of illogical arguments to advance your case.

Until I present my proof, and if they cannot refute it logically, yet still reject the proof given, then they are the ones being illogical. Especially since they're the ones making the claim that my proof is insufficient. This matches logic perfectly.



I would disagree, as MANY religious debates include logical mathematical based systems to argue. Just look at...ANY William Lane Craig debate. Besides, even if it WAS rarely seen, it doesn't matter, because they STILL count as proofs, just like mathematical forumlae count as proofs.



Well, just sound, not valid. A premise can be unsound, yet still structurally valid. Minor point, but meh.



Ok, maybe I did misinterpret your argument, still though, this new wording isn't really much better in my opinion. All you're essentially saying is, "In order to convince someone, they have to be convinced by you." And as I've said before, if I've demonstrated the premise, and the person I'm trying to persuade employs logical fallacies or illogical argumentation, that's THEIR problem, not mine.



A rock is a rock, a rock is not not a rock. This is a claim that is true, and logicaly verifiable. Logic employs methods to observe this to be true.
1. Rock = A
2. A=A
3. A=/=(=/=) A
4. It then follows from the premises that A=A and A will not, and does not ever = =/=A.

There's my logical proof for the first premise. Point to a claim you deny, and explain why it's insufficient, or accept it. Or, you can point to where it's structurally invalid, and I would have to tweak it.



By observations I meant the inarguable ones like A=A and A=/=(=/=)A



It's as defined as I need it to be for my purposes. Accurate. Logical observations are accurate. Also, because of how logic works, you don't have to agree or disagree with the conclusion, the only thing that matters is that the conclusion logically follows from the premises.



I can't really argue the point until I've read up more on the arguments against the Cogito. So I'll concede the point here until I become better read on the subject.



Well, I will say that now you've made the arguments of why you feel illogical arguments are good, but I have employed logic thoroughly throughout the entirety of my responses, intentionally for this very reason. Again, I feel it necessarily to reiterate, pragmaticism IS evidence towards the validity and soundness of a premise in logic.

They could either demonstrate why your proof is not complete, or challenge your premises, in which case you would have to demonstrate why your premises are true. I can make this argument

Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: If God exists, positive atheism(actively believing God does not exist) is false
Conclusion: Positive atheism is false.

As long as premise 1 is true, I'm set here. But if you challenge me on premise 1, I would think the burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate why premise one is true rather than on you to demonstrate why we cannot conclude that it is true.



I'm saying that you need to find the most fundamental point of contention and debate that. Otherwise you're just talking past each other.



There are numerous problems with your statement. First, it is only a single observation, and you premise specified plural observations(although failed to describe beyond this).

Second, the example you put forward has no meaning. It is completely trivial.

Third, the example you put forward is only true because it has been defined to be true. A=A because that is how = is defined.

This points to the fourth and most fundamental point. Any attempt to prove that logic is somehow true or correct using logic is both impossible and incoherent. A logical proof that logic is correct assumes the conclusion before it starts. A logical proof of logic is only valid and even readable if I accept that logic is correct before I start reading it. Thus, we know that the correctness of logic and the decision to use logic cannot be logically proven because that would rely on simply assuming the conclusion from the start. Hence, these must come from something other than logic.



Not all your arguments are logical, but that doesn't have to be a negative thing. And as you say, pragmaticism is evidence and often useful evidence at that, it just isn't LOGICAL evidence(unless you simply define it to be so by fiat).