NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people are at least aware of the existence of logic and reason, although they may never resort to them, but how many other ways of "knowing" are there?

Several thoughts to get the discussion started:

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

* What constitutes "evidence?"

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

I'll probably be adding more of these as the discussion progresses.

Have at it! :)

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?--Not necessarily, they can contribute, but when they do it's typically mildly confusing, and often jumbled. Espescially when they tend to write with a "stream-of-consciousness" style.
* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?--No, while "emotional logic" has some worth, it is nowhere near as important as reason. Hence, if your argument is entirely based on EL then it is flawed, but if EL is a part of it, then it isn't.

* What constitutes "evidence?"--That which can be empirically proven, or "makes sense" to 90% of the people. This high number is to ensure that you can't just go with a specific viewpoint, but the population in general. Although this can be overridden by empirical evidence.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?--Yes, espescially if the posters sources are the basis of their argument, in which case their entire argument is flawed based on the fact that the base is broken.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"--No. To question logic is not an attack in any means. It's a challenge as to how the person came to the decision. If a person has a flaw in their logic it should be pointed out so that they can either fix their logic, or point out a flaw in yours.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?--No, all posts must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?--Once again it depends on a case-by-case basis.

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"--Breaches of etiquette, typically stuff that would warrant a warning from the mods. Also, excessive use of incorrect information might be a potential reason, but it would have to be clear to everyone.


Hope my ideas are logical.

hmmm. I have a counter question. Define the nature of probability. :P

Hmmm.. I don't really know how to answer this. Perhaps if I give my answer to each of your things to think about it would become clearer to me?

"* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?"

If someone cannot order their facts in a logical manner does not mean, to me, anyway, that they have nothing to contribute. I admit, however, I am biased, having a very erratic mind (forgetting what I'm saying mid-sentence, etc.) A person who has difficulty laying out their thoughts logically can be equally likely to arrive at a meaningful contribution if they know how to think. The means are not often questioned if the answer makes sense. Arguments that seem illogical can be explained in a logical fashion, even if the person in question tends to think erratically or illogically, if their argument is of worth in the first place, it can be explained logically.

"Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?"

To me, absolutely, if I interpret you right. (gut feeling, someones instinctive morality?) emotional logic is the more personal voice of someones argument, and represents more fully the direction someone is approaching a problem. Emotional logic, after all, is what makes us human, and as such, is a virtue. (I believe that anything that distinguishes us from animals and computers is a virtue of a sort, even if it is technically a flaw in character. Of a very obscure sort, but never mind.)

"What constitutes "evidence?" "

Evidence is something that lends credence to an argument, though the main distinction is between good evidence and bad evidence. emotional logic can be a deciding factor in what constitutes good evidence and bad evidence, as people are more willing to accept that which they already believe. Bad evidence could simply also be a statement or act of gross stupidity used to generalise, a certain type of people, etc. Pure good evidence I feel lies mainly in the realm of statistics, and only if these are accepted by a majority source, though in certain cases, sound theory could also be accepted as good evidence (gravity, anyone?)

"Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?"

Absolutely. If a posters sources are at fault then I would consider it a duty to inform the poster, to allow them to investigate further themselves, and to form their own concrete opinion on a matter. I would not consider it valid to attack a posters source for a reason not directly relevant to the argument however. (this source is obviously wrong. Only a liberal would believe in dogs. (I was gonna say Europe... but nah...) )
Of course, addressing their argument should be a prerequisite in any response to it, but exempting the sources from criticism or praise would also be incorrect.

"Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?" "

That depends how insultingly you do it. :) In a civilised way, no, in a flamey way, yes. One is a statement of opinion, the other an attack on their character.

"When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?"

No. Lunatic Goofballs, 'nuff said. Whilst I haven't read enough of his arguments to make a concrete opinion, I've certainly seen him be completely illogical one thread, and completely concise in the other.

"If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?"

Of course not. It shouldn't even call into doubt the hot button topic posts. They may be emotionally charged, but that does not prevent them from being lucid, logical, or correct.

"What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?" "

As far as I can tell, none. if they break any rules, they will be punished accordingly by the moderators, so there is no need to "ignore" them because they are abusive, etc. And if you ignore someone because they disagree with you, you probably shouldn't be debating in the first place, hmm?

Most people are at least aware of the existence of logic and reason, although they may never resort to them, but how many other ways of "knowing" are there?

Several thoughts to get the discussion started:

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

* What constitutes "evidence?"

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

I'll probably be adding more of these as the discussion progresses.

Have at it! :)
1 If someone's argumnt isn't at least logically consistent it carries no weight with me. For instance if someone says A=B, therefore C means shrimp can read, I can't follow where he got C from so I disregard his babbling.

2 Emotional logic has it's place when discussing how some turn of events might make someone feel. It's of limited use.

3 Evidence is verifiable facts that support the argument. If the facts can't be verified they are of little or no use as evidence. Whenever possible evidence that deals with a complex and variable system, like the human body, should be based on numerous trials, not a few anecdotes.

4 Yes if the attack is valid. For instance if I used Weekly World News to back up an assertion that bigfoot existed, you would be correct in pointing out that Weekly World News publishes stories that have been proven false. If I use Steven Jay Gould's work as evidence for evolution, and you say his work is invalid because he was a Jew, that won't fly. His being a Jew has nothing to do with his science.

5 No. Flawed logic invalidates an argument. Logic is part of the construction of the argument, not part of the person.

6 I do so just to save myself time. I play the odds that he will continue to be wrong. I will occasionally check his posts out of curiosity though.

7 No. We all have hot button topics.

8 I've never placed anyone in ignore, so I wouldn't know.

I don't want to answer all of these, but I would say that being logical is worth the bother. Like all things it becomes instinctive after practice.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

Surely that is the very heart of debate?

Most people are at least aware of the existence of logic and reason, although they may never resort to them, but how many other ways of "knowing" are there?

Several thoughts to get the discussion started:

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

* What constitutes "evidence?"

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

I'll probably be adding more of these as the discussion progresses.

Have at it! :)
mm i've given this a little thought and realised that thinking too rationally can have its own problems. i've started to notice myself putting equal weight and legtimacy on every side of an arguement - all viewpoints are just as valid as each other. I will try to understand the reasoning of the different parties, and their arguements, involved - if i can - and then weigh these against my own thoughs. unfortunatley because of this i have little conviction behind my thoughts as most opinions - ethically or factually - have both positive and negative points. so while my viewpoint has, say, positives that outwieigh the negatives, another person would see it the other way around. thus the undersanding and appreciation of thier opinion belittle's mine. hence i rarely argue for any particular side very strongly.
still, that's probably better than being brought up with a viewpoint, not challenging it and blindly accepting what others say.
...or is it?
...ignorance is bliss after all?
...maybe we'd all be happier if fewer people were so sceptical...
you get the picture.

*If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?*
If underneath the surface, or premise, of the arguement it turns out the arguement is indeed based on logical reasoning and rational thought, then absolutely the arguement has real validity. if however the opinion is less 'based' - made up of hearsay, limited understanding of the subject, no weighing up of opposing arguements, for example - the viewpoint is less valid, as a arguement, and thus carries less sway in a debate. as an opinion, however everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is no less valid, as an opinion in that respect.

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?*
I have rarely encountered this (at least as i understand it). If, however, 'emotional logic' is still based on rational thought - eg. "People would get upset if you killed their children" - then this is absolutely valid as it is the truth. If this wasn't known to be 'the truth', and thus so obvious, some rational thought - based on emotional logic - would have had so work this out. Thus some kinds of EL are valid.

* What constitutes "evidence?"*
On a forum, news reports are sufficient, for me. However the many, many news sources out there evidently each have a bias. A arguement will be more valid if the news source is more unbiased. Presenting facts, like statistics, are also subject to bias, manipulation and wrongful interpretation, but are nonetheless even more valid than news sources.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?*
Their opinion is what they are debating for. The source the poster will choose to back up or represent his/her arguement. Attacking their source is missing the point and avoiding the real arguement at hand. Of course, that doesn't mean that sources can't be attacked at all....

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"*
Sometimes - it depends where their resoning is based from. Past personal experiences will be passable, but an arguement based on reasoning stemming from the poster's current situation would be an ad hominem attack (attack on their motives). The arguement of a tramp vying for free state booze, for example is not passable as a valid one. Then again, in the tramp's favour, he/she does have first-hand experience of something - a way of life - that the majority of us do not have. In this way, their arguement could be more valid - being a tramp, s/he knows what tramps want/need. who are we to deny them what they desire? the capitalist system denies them the ability to get what they desire, thus are we blocking their happiness? do we know, with outside experience in helping tramps, what is really best for them? do we only deny them free booze because of the health risks? see what i've been going through!?

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?*
Nope. if the poster can back up his/her latest, seemingly logical, post with the necessary arguement, logic, reasoning and evidence, then thier last post will be just as valid as any (as an arguement). They may not have been trying (or properly awake) in their previous posts - like i often am :(

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?*
If the 'hot button' topic is related to the other posts in question, then... maybe. they have a clear reasoning and an obvious logical train-of-thought (having linked the two topics) - surely this would make their posts more valid? i was thinking of a counterarguement but im going to sleep typing this (have a reward-cookie all ye who have read so far!)

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"*
I don't. bah.

I would answer the questions. But I am lazy.

That which can be empirically proven, or "makes sense" to 90% of the people. This high number is to ensure that you can't just go with a specific viewpoint, but the population in general. Although this can be overridden by empirical evidence.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?--No, all posts must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Hope my ideas are logical.

Emminently. :) However, I have questions about the two I quoted above:

"That which can be empirically proven, or "makes sense" to 90% of the people." Dude ... if you can come up with ANYthing which makes sense to 90% of the people, you are definitely the MAN, and should run for political office! :D

"... all posts must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

And you actually DO this???

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

No, not automatically, everyone can contribute. However, I probably would say this, probably being one of those that finds it hard to order their thoughts.

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

What do you mean by emotional logic? It not a term I have come across before, is it basing opinions off things that seem like nice/moral/etc things?

* What constitutes "evidence?"

Something that can be empirically proven or verified.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

Depends. Depends on how heavily the poster bases his/her arguement on the source and on the nature of the source. For example, if someone uses Fox News to prove a point, it may not be valid to attack the source (though this depends on how you attack it), however if someone using something like the the Articles of the Eldars of Zion to prove a Jewish conspiracy it would be valid to attack the source.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

No. I think it is just polite, I would hope others would have the decency to do the same to me.

Ideally though, you should point out why and how the logic is faulty rather then just point out that the logic is faulty.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

No. People chance, and maybe the poster gets a sudden burst of seriousness.
(An example of this is Lunatic Goofballs who make lot of silly comments, but also make very good serious posts)

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

No.

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

Repeated flaming towards you.

However I don't plan to ever put anyone on ignore.

hmmm. I have a counter question. Define the nature of probability. :P

... if you ignore someone because they disagree with you, you probably shouldn't be debating in the first place, hmm?

Excellent points! However, I have no intention of "defining the nature of probability." I'm too weak in math! :D

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

Of course not. A logical structure may help you in making your point, or persuading another that you have something reasonable to say, but there are many arguments presented in forms that are not prima facie logical.
Examples include classical literature, such as Shakespeare's tragedies, or Jane Austen's novels, some work that is now considered to be philosophy, e.g. Neitsche, Keirkegaard etc. and most political argument.

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

I am not sure that it is appropriate to call it logic. Emotional reasoning, appeals to the conscience, etc. are all parts of argumentation, but are not, IMO, logical in any form.

* What constitutes "evidence?"

We probably need an entire four year graduate course in epistemology to answer this. And then we would almost certainly conclude that we do not really know. However, in brief, I consider evidence to be something that is in some way quantifiable (Sinuhue will disagree, I know).
Statistics are notoriously slippery, but are better evidence than unsupported opinion. There is of course evidence of personal experience, but this really is only persuasive to the person concerned, or to others who have known the person to be consistantly reliable.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

Yes. An argument may be valid, but to be persuasive it has to be sound. This means that the premises upon which the argument is based have to be agreed to be correct. If one party finds a premise to be doubtful, then attacking that premise is certainly an acceptable strategy.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

In the sense of being an insult to the person, no. Provide the attacker can show how and where the logic of the poster has failed. Just saying that the poster is being illogical, is no argument, nor is it questioning the logic, it is simply decreeing that the poster is wrong. This could reasonably be constituted as insulting.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

Are all swans white. No, induction is not valid. However, if the poster consistently posts two hundred+ word items, then after a few examples ofd incoherent thinking, you would be excused if you did not bother to read through the rest. It also depends if the poster has various styles of posting: i.e. serious / irreverant.

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

No. All of us have subjects which touch us personally, and provoke reactions that are often less than rational. Allow people to be people, it is what makes the world so fascinating.

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

Personal choice. Our actions and behaviour are not always guided by reason, nor should they be. (I actualy think that they never are, but I am a Humean, or is that an Humean?)

Excellent points! However, I have no intention of "defining the nature of probability." I'm too weak in math! :D
Math is teh d3V1L!!!!11!!11!!!11!!

"That which can be empirically proven, or "makes sense" to 90% of the people." Dude ... if you can come up with ANYthing which makes sense to 90% of the people, you are definitely the MAN, and should run for political office! :D

As they say: the problem with common sense, is that in most cases it is neither.

hmmm. I have a counter question. Define the nature of probability. :P


It is a mathematical function that describes the chance of some event ocurring under specified conditions. :D

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?"

Repeated flaming towards you.

However I don't plan to ever put anyone on ignore.

Me either, since I want to hear what everyone has to say, although I almost made an exception to this for the inimitable "ChessSquares." :D

[QUOTE=Eutrusca]* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity? --ordered thoughts in this forum, this venue, are definately a plus, because it allows others to follow a line of reasoning and, perhaps, arrive at the same conclusion on their own. More importantly, it allows them to mount a counterargument --illogical leaps don't afford the opposition that benefit. Outside this forum, though, and for other reasons, illogical leaps often prove to be the straightest path between two points. Illogical arguments are not invalid, they just need to be explained more.

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint? --I'm not sure what is meant by "emotional logic." It sounds illogical. :)

* What constitutes "evidence?" --evidence is anything that provides a clue. It can be objective evidence for the masses to consume, or as simple as a subjectively garnered sign that speaks to only one mind. Evidence is a means to an intellectual end.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument? --the "attacker" has some validity if they demand a source and then can demonstrate that the source is in error. More often than not, though, it is an easy means to dismiss what was actually said, or amounts to little more than nit-picking. Most posters will put their own interpretation into what the source has to offer. Addressing the poster, what he said, and why he chose to quote that particular source (i.e. what he gets out of the source's information), is more significant and would further meaningful discussion.

Hmm, this is beginning to sound like an etiquette guide.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?" --it depends entirely on the context, no? It could certainly be perceived as ad hominem under some circumstances. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's any sort of rule of thumb.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts? --no; he or she could simply be having a bad hair day.

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts? --um, no. If, on the other hand, they are consistently so, they would be summarily ignored.

* What constitues grounds for placing a poster on "ignore?" --for me, it's any line of reasoning that leads to talk about politics, sports or amusing-sounding body functions. :)

* Logic takes time and effort, and placing thoughts in a logical sequence so that your argument is based at least in part on reasoned discourse can be not only time consuming, but can also be rather daunting. Some people have great difficulty doing this; if they cannot order their thoughts in a logical manner, does that mean they have little or nothing to contribue? If your argument doesn't make recourse to logic on its face, does that necessarily mean it has no validity?

Yes.

* Some people give as much weight to "emotional logic" as they do to reason. Is this a valid viewpoint?

No.

* What constitutes "evidence?"

Ideally, observation with your own eyes confirmed by tangible evidence which may be examined afterwards. Less ideally, reports of multiple independent observations which are consistent with each other. Even less ideally, a single report of an observation when the observer has an excellent reputation for truthfulness. Cross-checking is essential for all of these, by using other evidence and applying logic to spot flaws. Evidence is a probability matrix.

* Is it valid to attack a poster's sources rather than directly address his/her argument?

Yes.

* Is questioning a poster's logic an "ad hominim attack?"

No.

* When a poster has appeared to be illogical in most of their previous posts, is it acceptable to discount ALL of her/his posts?

Yes (discount not dismiss).

* If a poster has "hot button topics" about which he/she tends to get vociferous, does that call into doubt ALL of her/his posts?

No.

All of us have subjects which touch us personally, and provoke reactions that are often less than rational. Allow people to be people, it is what makes the world so fascinating.

Personal choice. Our actions and behaviour are not always guided by reason, nor should they be. (I actualy think that they never are, but I am a Humean, or is that an Humean?)

Excellent post! You obviously have more than a passing familiarity with the topic. :)

I agree with argumentation and debate with fervent others is part of what makes the world fascinating! :D

"Humean?" I'm not familiar with the term. :confused:

I'm not going to take part in this debate, because I've finished IB long ago, and got 40. (woot!) Moreover, I got A in TOK, man!

I'm not going to take part in this debate, because I've finished IB long ago, and got 40. (woot!) Moreover, I got A in TOK, man!

What do the acronyms stand for? I don't recognize them. Sorry. :confused:

"Humean?" I'm not familiar with the term. :confused:

This means that I agree, in principle, with the position of David Hume

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them

D. Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature, Book 2, Part III, Section III (p. 415 in Nidditch)

I'm not going to take part in this debate, because I've finished IB long ago, and got 40. (woot!) Moreover, I got A in TOK, man!

IB is a mystery, but TOK should be Theory of Knowledge :)