Jump to content


Photo

Use Your "2+2" Logic


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 October 2015 - 06:09 AM

It seems that people here think that logic is relevant to the subject of God, origins (the important ones), the truth of religious scripture and whatever else. I request that the people here who think there is anything reliable in the context of this forum about the appeal to the logic of "2 + 2", to use your logic to evaluate a statement.

Use logic on this common saying: "You are what you eat."

(Hint: Victim's Family.)

Thanks.

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 October 2015 - 06:40 AM


 

 

 

Schera: Use logic on this common saying: "You are what you eat."

 

If it is a literal statement then it is logically false because it can be shown that we "are" blood, bone, skin, organs, etc.. but the food we eat, isn't, therefore the law of non-contradiction would apply.

 

Since a human body is NOT food, and since food is NOT a human body then it is a contradiction, for how can two different things be the same thing?

 

If you only are what you eat, then what came first, the vegetable or the human? It represents an absurd chicken-and-egg scenario whereby we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to rebut the statement. :)

 

If you are saying there are deeper meanings that just logical inference, I agree. But there are logical consequence in the real world if there was a real flood and there really are animal kinds.



#3 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 October 2015 - 01:05 PM

If it is a literal statement then it is logically false because it can be shown that we "are" blood, bone, skin, organs, etc.. but the food we eat, isn't, therefore the law of non-contradiction would apply.

Since a human body is NOT food, and since food is NOT a human body then it is a contradiction, for how can two different things be the same thing?

If you only are what you eat, then what came first, the vegetable or the human? It represents an absurd chicken-and-egg scenario whereby we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to rebut the statement. :)

If you are saying there are deeper meanings that just logical inference, I agree. But there are logical consequence in the real world if there was a real flood and there really are animal kinds.

.
Of course, my mistake was not to clarify the meaning of the expression when I started the thread. You should take the logic of the expression, "You are what you eat", is that: Given no other serious physical malady, empirical data tend to show a link between one's eating habits and many physical ailments and disease. (Though I can't be sure that the same association can be made between eating wholesome, nutritious things and physical vitality.) My question about a logical analysis of the accuracy of the expression, "You are what you eat", is indifferent to and does not lie with the imprecise or inadvisable wording--as in an identity (=) between "are (us)" and carrots, for example.

In case you want to give a revised evaluation, I'll forgo getting to my evaluation of the expression.

#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 28 October 2015 - 02:46 PM

 

 

Schera: Given no other serious physical malady, empirical data tend to show a link between one's eating habits and many physical ailments and disease

 

The logic of it is basically this; it can be shown inductively, that there is a relationship, a causality in what types of vitamins and food you have, and the level of good or bad it can do to you based on the design of the body to run most efficiently given a balanced diet. The body is designed to run most efficiently given certain nutrients and is not designed to run by being bombarded by things that slow down, and stop the efficiency of systems in the body.

 

Did I pass the Schera test? Perhaps you could elaborate more about my thinking "logic is relevant to the subject of God?", you seem to think I am making an error by perhaps creating theistic arguments that are logical, as though the two things are mutually exclusive?

 

My 2+2 comments just refer to logical rules that are so obvious that anyone can understand them.



#5 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 October 2015 - 09:03 AM

The logic of it is basically this; it can be shown inductively, that there is a relationship, a causality in what types of vitamins and food you have, and the level of good or bad it can do to you based on the design of the body to run most efficiently given a balanced diet. The body is designed to run most efficiently given certain nutrients and is not designed to run by being bombarded by things that slow down, and stop the efficiency of systems in the body.

Did I pass the Schera test? Perhaps you could elaborate more about my thinking "logic is relevant to the subject of God?", you seem to think I am making an error by perhaps creating theistic arguments that are logical, as though the two things are mutually exclusive?

My 2+2 comments just refer to logical rules that are so obvious that anyone can understand them.

.
With respect to the hint, it is the name of a hardcore band. From their 1990 White Bread Blues, song Supermarket Nightmare:

(...)
And I feel sorry for the lambs,
The turkeys and the hams caught in the scam.
I know "we are not what we eat, we are what we don't (word filtered)*"
And that is it.
...


(* Hugh Romney)

The final word, representing feces, I change to the more accurate word "excrete": "...we are what we don't excrete." This formulation is more accurate than "you are what you eat", though it is not fully accurate, as the phrase "you (we) are" means the inaccurate identity: for example, when one swallows a penny, is that eating a penny? No, but we allow the more general "consume" and we, eventually and we hope, excrete the penny. While the penny is inside your body, is it accurate to assert that I am the penny? No. None of these considerations change the fact that the post-punk, immoralists got it more accurate than the so-called common wisdom.

#6 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 October 2015 - 11:12 AM

Schera Do said:
Would it be safe to say that there "must" be some power to override understanding (=agreeing with you)?
Now what could that power be? LOL

(Note to Mike the wiz: What would Mike Summers logic conclude?) :banana_vacation:  :crazyguy:

.
No, no, three times no I DID NOT "SAY" THE QUOTE PROVIDED, NOR DID I TYPE THE QUOTE.
.

...
My 2+2 comments just refer to logical rules that are so obvious that anyone can understand them.



#7 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 29 October 2015 - 02:05 PM

 

 

Mike: Note to Mike the wiz: What would Mike Summers logic conclude?

 

Not sure Mike, I'll have to plead temporary stupidity/laziness, right now this thread is like the twilight zone, I haven't the foggiest what anyone is going on about apart from me. Lol, I guess that's the benefit of being in my own head but not in anyone elses. ;)

 

. ..I admit that I am at a loss as to what this thread is even about. Lol



#8 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 29 October 2015 - 03:34 PM

Mike the wiz said:

Since a human body is NOT food, and since food is NOT a human body then it is a contradiction, for how can two different things be the same thing?

If you only are what you eat, then what came first, the vegetable or the human? It represents an absurd chicken-and-egg scenario whereby we can use reductio-ad-absurdum to rebut the statement. :)

If you are saying there are deeper meanings that just logical inference, I agree. But there are logical consequence in the real world if there was a real flood and there really are animal kinds.

Good analogy. Have you considered the phrase "Chicken or egg" is seldom if ever asked, "egg or chicken"? I think our minds are making subtle points that we tend to accept that the chicken came first. lol

It's a pattern I noticed. For example in automotives we say engines have horsepower. The same is true of electricity where AC is compared to
DC. Most non tech people do not realize that Alternating voltage rises and falls in what is called a sine wave (AM). An ac voltage is therefore compared to DC and is averaged. Peak AC voltage can be as high as 160 volts compared to DC's constant voltage of 120v. Meters measure average available useable voltage when measuring AC voltage as compared to it's predecessor DC.

Materialists tend to break the law of non contradiction by claiming matter is the same as mental. I't's the same with code and information.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#9 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:56 AM

...
My 2+2 comments just refer to logical rules that are so obvious that anyone can understand them.

.

Not sure Mike, I'll have to plead temporary stupidity/laziness, right now this thread is like the twilight zone, I haven't the foggiest what anyone is going on about apart from me. Lol, I guess that's the benefit of being in my own head but not in anyone elses. ;)

. ..I admit that I am at a loss as to what this thread is even about. Lol

.
The Twilight Zone was a fine show.

Your previous use of "2+2" was not supposed to be merely ("just") a reference to logical rules. You accused someone or another of committing some violation of logic that is tantamount to a willful violation of grade-school, counting arithmetic.

The motivation for starting this thread was the repeated appearance of "2+2" in other threads. I wanted to determine whether those who use "2+2=4" as something, anything meaningful, can evaluate one of the most accepted expressions. I determined that it could not be evaluated--by one such person. "2+2" is counting math and I think it risky to use the logic of counting no-things ("2" doesn't refer to any things) when debating about real things. "+" must refer to [u]counting[/i] as that is the only way "2+2" can be a generalized truth--that is, for all contexts.

If "+" refers to addition, then the operation must possess the "property of opposite of a sum":
 

For all real numbers x and y,

–(x + y) = (–x) + (–y)

.
Notice that the set of real numbers includes all non-whole (non-integer) values between whole numbers (integers); 1.5 for example. Go outside the classroom, away from the whiteboard and armchair and apply the above property to actual things: The only way to succeed for all things is to restrict "+" to counting.

How does the logic of counting real things apply to the question of origins and evolution? I'm doubtful.

#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 October 2015 - 01:33 PM

 

 

Schera: How does the logic of counting real things apply to the question of origins and evolution? I'm doubtful

 

It is the ability to know that two add two equals four, which means that level of maths is about the level of logic I was discussing in the other thread. That is how easy the logic was to understand, it was the equivalent of 2 add 2.

 

EXAMPLE OF EQUIVALENCY;

 

"This guy has just won the most grand slams and championships of tennis EVER! In our sport, it is likened to Schumacher taking 7 F1 titles!"

 

There are certain logical teachings that are so easy to understand that anyone of normal intelligence should be able to understand them, which means that this gives me the knowledge that they do understand those easy points I am making, which means they are only disagreeing with simple logic for atheist reasons. 

 

Sometimes people will say extreme things as you might have noticed, such as, "there is no evidence for creation/animal kinds". To then refute them I show a simple level of logic akin to 2 + 2, that if theory X is true then naturally evidence P will follow.

 

If there is a theory that you robbed the bank, naturally it follows that CCTV capturing you robbing the bank would be evidence that you robbed the bank. Or evidence you had an operation would be a scar, etc...I think we can agree that this is a two add two level of logic.

 

Similarly, evidence that animal kinds have always reproduced what they are according to genetic identity would be to find old fossils that look identical to today's living versions. I hope you can agree Schera, that this is the only evidence you could expect given such a theory, unless you believe that if Noah's flood fossilized a jellyfish then it should NOT look like a jellyfish.

 

If you believe that, then you are stating the equivalent of saying that two add two is not four.



#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 31 October 2015 - 04:19 PM


Mike the wiz said: It is the ability to know that two add two equals four, which means that level of maths is about the level of logic I was discussing in the other thread. That is how easy the logic was to understand, it was the equivalent of 2 add 2.

EXAMPLE OF EQUIVALENCY;

"This guy has just won the most grand slams and championships of tennis EVER! In our sport, it is likened to Schumacher taking 7 F1 titles!"

There are certain logical teachings that are so easy to understand that anyone of normal intelligence should be able to understand them, which means that this gives me the knowledge that they do understand those easy points I am making, which means they are only disagreeing with simple logic for atheist reasons.

Sometimes people will say extreme things as you might have noticed, such as, "there is no evidence for creation/animal kinds". To then refute them I show a simple level of logic akin to 2 + 2, that if theory X is true then naturally evidence P will follow.

If there is a theory that you robbed the bank, naturally it follows that CCTV capturing you robbing the bank would be evidence that you robbed the bank. Or evidence you had an operation would be a scar, etc...I think we can agree that this is a two add two level of logic.

Similarly, evidence that animal kinds have always reproduced what they are according to genetic identity would be to find old fossils that look identical to today's living versions. I hope you can agree Schera, that this is the only evidence you could expect given such a theory, unless you believe that if Noah's flood fossilized a jellyfish then it should NOT look like a jellyfish.

If you believe that, then you are stating the equivalent of saying that two add two is not four.

Reasoning is an almost certain prediction of an outcome. Intelligence gives us the ability to minimize random events and achieve specificity. This makes creativity paramount and achievable of the highest deree of goal certainty.

Humans are goal driven and use goals to minimize random. We select events (cause and effect relatonahips) that consistantly propel us toeardsa our goals.

This in direct opposition or the converse of evolution which has no goal but allegedly achieves a level of complexity humans with their goals desire to mimic but never approach. The human mind/ body phenomenon remains the most complex achievement in the known universe.

Mike made the statement inferring the only reason to deny logical known cause/ effect relationships is atheism.

His conclusion demonstrates that creative entities have the ability to overide logocal reasoning to create opposition to Occam's razor and Aristotle's laws of non contradiction.

As Mike used the word "atheist", the meaning associated to it by our mind becomes "adversary". One role of the adversary is to contradict whatever another creator creates through use of the basic rules of logic. Thus the implication of the idea that something another creator has created is unfit. It's not that going left is better than going right, it is simply the "goal" of the adversary to "create" conflict.

To achieve their goal the alleged atheist supports "the truth" as if "it" is static and a dichotomy. Thus the inevitable conclusion--a conflict between truth and creativity.

While creativity implies the ability to bring something into existence that does not exist at this point in time, the alleged atheist becomes the arbitrary definer of how and what can or can't exiar (be created). But then that is the "goal" of the adversary (alleged atheist). lol


 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 November 2015 - 03:29 AM

 

 

Super Summers:Mike made the statement inferring the only reason to deny logical known cause/ effect relationships is atheism.

His conclusion demonstrates that creative entities have the ability to overide logocal reasoning to create opposition to Occam's razor and Aristotle's laws of non contradiction.

 

That's it Mike! And "override" is the operative word. It is not that they do not understand basic logic and non-contradiction but they willfully choose to deny reality because reality is favouring creation and created kinds.



#13 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 05 November 2015 - 06:48 AM

...
EXAMPLE[s] OF EQUIVALENCY;

"This guy has just won the most grand slams and championships of tennis EVER! In our sport, it is likened to Schumacher taking 7 F1 titles!"

There are certain logical teachings that are so easy to understand that anyone of normal intelligence should be able to understand them, which means that this gives me the knowledge that they do understand those easy points I am making, which means they are only disagreeing with simple logic for atheist reasons.

Sometimes people will say extreme things as you might have noticed, such as, "there is no evidence for creation/animal kinds". To then refute them I show a simple level of logic akin to 2 + 2, that if theory X is true then naturally evidence P will follow.

If there is a theory that you robbed the bank, naturally it follows that CCTV capturing you robbing the bank would be evidence that you robbed the bank. Or evidence you had an operation would be a scar, etc...I think we can agree that this is a two add two level of logic.

Similarly, evidence that animal kinds have always reproduced what they are according to genetic identity would be to find old fossils that look identical to today's living versions. I hope you can agree Schera, that this is the only evidence you could expect given such a theory, unless you believe that if Noah's flood fossilized a jellyfish then it should NOT look like a jellyfish.

If you believe that, then you are stating the equivalent of saying that two add two is not four.

.
I think your "5-year-old level logic" hasn't been able to "create" logical examples: I have three scars, one from an operation, two NOT; two cuts were closed by stitches, one NOT; you could have used "stitches" instead of "operation" and you'd still be wrong because one of my scars didn't have EITHER stitches nor was caused by an operation. Let's forgive you on this account and move directly to the issue.

I'm still astounded that you peddle "2 + 2" as though it isn't specious and isn't tenuous. I've suggested that you (anyone) take your "5-year-old level of logic" out of the classroom or armchair and where you have to choose things to represent the operands (2,2) and sum (4). I'll do just that:

Let's choose from the set of automobiles the subset of cars. I'm going to make a statement about the equation prior to defining "+" and I may not need to define "+" for cars because I should be finished prior to that point. We shall "see".

We know that your operands aren't confined to '2', that "1 + 2 = 3" contains the SAME logic about which you have been drawing an equivalence when you use "2 + 2"; I'm going to use the second because there is no restriction that the operands be equal, as in "3 + 3", "1 + 1", and so on.

Whatever we may or may not determine "+" to be when the operands are cars, the properties of addition must be valid or we have a breakdown of the ASSUMED LOGIC. We know that, in the abstract, 1 + 2 = 2 + 1--the Commutative Property:
.

For all real numbers x and y,

x + y = y + x

.
While we remain in the abstract (classroom), there is no limit to (an infinity of) values of x, y on the whole number line. Further, by the definition of "real numbers", there is no limit to the number of decimal values between ANY successive integers. As we contemplate the definition of "+" for cars, we must decide which decimal numbers IF ANY are defined for cars: Can we have .0000000004 of a car?; Can we have 1.5 cars?

The "logic" of the addition in "1 + 2" REQUIRES ALL POSSIBLE INTEGERS AND DECIMALS. I don't think I need to go any further than this.

#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 November 2015 - 12:41 PM

 

 

Schera: I think your "5-year-old level logic" hasn't been able to "create" logical examples: I have three scars, one from an operation, two NOT; two cuts were closed by stitches, one NOT; you could have used "stitches" instead of "operation"and you'd still be wrong because one of my scars didn't have EITHER stitches nor was caused by an operation. Let's forgive you on this account and move directly to the issue.

 

Nope. Like Piasan and Goku in another thread, you think I am suggesting that one should affirm-the-consequent. I am not.

 

Because I said "if X then Y" it does not then mean I am suggesting that "because of Y therefore X".

 

So how can I be, "wrong" when I never suggested that if you have a scar then it was caused by an operation, I suggested if you had an operation then you would have a scar.

 

In a conditional implication, you can only deny the consequent, through the modus tollens.

 

This example might help you to understand why only the ponen and tollens rule is deductively "correct". Your suggestion was that affirmation-of-the-consequent makes a conditional implication incorrect. You are quite wrong. I will highlight correct deductions in blue and fallacious errors in red:

 

If he had an operation and they cut him open(theory) THEN it would follow that he would have a scar.

If there wasn't an operation then there would be no scar. (incorrect - denial of antecedent).

If there is a scar on him (or Schera) then that means there was an operation. (incorrect - affirmation of consequent)

If there was no scar then there was no operation. (Correct- denial of consequent - modus tollens, (method of destruction)

 

This works for all examples that correctly follow, but you have to make sure the modus ponen is firstly valid.

 

EXAMPLE:

 

If it is a pig then it is an animal.

It is an animal therefore it is a pig.

It is not a pig therefore it is not an animal.

It is not an animal therefore it is not a pig.

 

(red highlighted statements are fallacious)

 

Can you see how logic always works as long as you make sure your argument is correct? Can you start to see how it is always right? Why don't you think of your own examples if you don't believe me. Let's try another one; (spot the fallacies this time without highlights)

 

If you are the queen of England then you are a female.

You are not the queen therefore you are not female.

You are female therefore you are the queen.

You are not a female therefore you are not the queen.

 

 

 

 

 

Schera: I think your "5-year-old level logic" hasn't been able to "create" logical examples

 

Did you really believe that? I think you bit the chocolate before it melted. Had you waited you would have been able to savour the flavour. My chocolate is always guaranteed to be tasty, but only if you don't bite it!

 

:)



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 November 2015 - 01:06 PM

Of course there are conditional implications which are not sound because the consequent doesn't truly follow the antecedent.

 

Example of incorrect conditional implication:

 

"If am a human then I will be a female".

 

This is a non-sequitur as it does not always follow all of the time but only a few times, if you find something that follows 100% of the time you then have a sound conditional implication as long as there is no equivocation, for example this implication is true;

 

"If it is a pig then it will be an animal".

 

This is 100% true unless we equivocate by arguing rhetorically like this, which in itself is a fallacious counter-argument; "but some pigs are money-banks".

 

That type of counter-argument DEPENDS on toying with the meaning of the term, "pig". (equivocation)

 

Savvy, Schera-student? ;)

 

(I'm just trying to show you Schera that I am not making claims about logic without any knowledge. I am not making things up as I go along but it seems to me you think I am not worth much more than the dog turd on your shoe when it comes to logical notation. That's a shame as anyone of reasonable intelligence should have been able to notice by now that I have ability and knowledge in logical wisdom which is what God has made me to be for the pulling down of false arguments and proud braggarts that come against the Lord with the folly of human wisdom and aggressive proudful boasts Him.)

 

:D   :acigar:

 

(I'm trying to do what Mike recommended - and make my light shine)



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 November 2015 - 01:30 PM

Logic comprises of two parts, Schera. Deductive logic and Inductive logic.

 

An example of inductive logic might be this following type of argument:

 

You walk into a shop/store, and you see someone acting fishy, looking at the cameras, you then see him stuffing something into his pants as though he has just robbed something. Then a few moments later you see him run from the store.

 

You come to the conclusion that he was a thief that had robbed something.

 

That would be an inductive argument because you are building a tally-of-evidence that would support the notion that he was a thief, because you know that these actions SUPPORT the notion or at least evidence the theory he is a thief.

 

Inductive arguments can be strong arguments but they can also be very weak, in this example imagine what had really happened was that the man simply had a need to urinate, which just shows the problem with some inductive arguments.

 

Deductive logic is much stronger and can even give you PROOF if you have a truly solid and sound argument but usually it is difficult to make such a strong case as to prove your case but sometimes your case is so strong deductively that a rational person would not deny it. Some things can be proven logically by deduction if the premises are correct such as this example:

 

We have three people in a house, Bob, Rob, and Pob. We want to know who is in the bathroom. You go to the living room and Bob is sitting in the living room/lounge. You go to the kitchen and Rob is cooking food. So then, we can deduce that Pob is in the bathroom as long as our premises are certain.

 

This is sometimes called a, "process of elimination" which is a way to deductively prove something. Police can use this if they rule out suspects by finding out if they had an alibi, for example.

 

Another example of deductive reasoning is the use of Reductio-ad-absurdum to disprove certain arguments.

 

For example, you argue that you have a million dollars in your bank account. If that was true we could find out by looking at a bank statement or up to date balance.  So then we can state the absurdity by flipping the script; "if you had a million in your bank then it wouldn't show up on your banking statements."

"Absurd, it clearly would show up therefore if it doesn't show up then you don't have a million pounds in your bank".



#17 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 04:49 AM

Nope. Like Piasan and Goku in another thread, you think I am suggesting that one should affirm-the-consequent. I am not.

Because I said "if X then Y" it does not then mean I am suggesting that "because of Y therefore X".

So how can I be, "wrong" when I never suggested that if you have a scar then it was caused by an operation, I suggested if you had an operation then you would have a scar.

In a conditional implication, you can only deny the consequent, through the modus tollens.

This example might help you to understand why only the ponen and tollens rule is deductively "correct". Your suggestion was that affirmation-of-the-consequent makes a conditional implication incorrect. You are quite wrong. I will highlight correct deductions in blue and fallacious errors in red:

If he had an operation and they cut him open(theory) THEN it would follow that he would have a scar.
If there wasn't an operation then there would be no scar. (incorrect - denial of antecedent).
If there is a scar on him (or Schera) then that means there was an operation. (incorrect - affirmation of consequent)
If there was no scar then there was no operation. (Correct- denial of consequent - modus tollens, (method of destruction)

This works for all examples that correctly follow, but you have to make sure the modus ponen is firstly valid.

EXAMPLE:

If it is a pig then it is an animal.
It is an animal therefore it is a pig.
It is not a pig therefore it is not an animal.
It is not an animal therefore it is not a pig.

(red highlighted statements are fallacious)

Can you see how logic always works as long as you make sure your argument is correct? Can you start to see how it is always right? Why don't you think of your own examples if you don't believe me. Let's try another one; (spot the fallacies this time without highlights)

If you are the queen of England then you are a female.
You are not the queen therefore you are not female.
You are female therefore you are the queen.
You are not a female therefore you are not the queen.




Did you really believe that? I think you bit the chocolate before it melted. Had you waited you would have been able to savour the flavour. My chocolate is always guaranteed to be tasty, but only if you don't bite it!

:)

.
After reading the first word, "Nope", I stopped reading and only scanned the post (and the two that followed) for any references to "2 + 2", or "1 + 2" and the like but, found nothing. I knew it was a bad idea when you used, repeatedly, the word "maths".We are done. Thanks anyway

I will continue for myself and others who might be interested.

#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2015 - 07:32 AM

 

 

Schera: After reading the first word, "Nope", I stopped reading and only scanned the post

 

But that is the whole problem Schera, you are scan-reading instead of concentrating on the points I raise.

 

You will understand why I said, "nope" if you read the whole of that post. Until you do, you shall forever remain in the phantom zone where you believe that two add two is not four. 

;)


  • Mike Summers likes this

#19 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 06 November 2015 - 07:48 AM

But that is the whole problem Schera, you are scan-reading instead of concentrating on the points I raise.

You will understand why I said, "nope" if you read the whole of that post. Until you do, you shall forever remain in the phantom zone where you believe that two add two is not four.
;)

.
Nope. I don't have a problem. You have a problem. Do you REALLY want an example of when 2 + 2 IS NOT 4? You pretend that you do. I dare you to answer yes. My demonstration will NOT require I define "+" for anything real.

I await your answer. I you don't answer 'yes', then you will be revealed as a sham.

#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 November 2015 - 07:59 AM

Lol






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users