NationStates Jolt Archive

I was in a debate with somebody else and eventually it got to this point where his point was unprovable. He still believed he was right though and argued that he was using metaphysics or ethos and pathos based arguments to prove his point. In return, I simply replied that none of those could logically prove anything about the subject and eventually this person just argued that I was just mentally inferior and because of that couldn't get his points. This leads to a question: should logic be the basis of debate and argumentation? I mean, after all, if you believe something is true, then doesn't that make it objectively true? Using logic to provide a common ground is just divisive and hurtful, we must accept people's emotions as good arguments.

I was in a debate with somebody else and eventually it got to this point where his point was unprovable. He still believed he was right though and argued that he was using metaphysics or ethos and pathos based arguments to prove his point. In return, I simply replied that none of those could logically prove anything about the subject and eventually this person just argued that I was just mentally inferior and because of that couldn't get his points. This leads to a question: should logic be the basis of debate and argumentation? I mean, after all, if you believe something is true, then doesn't that make it objectively true? Using logic to provide a common ground is just divisive and hurtful, we must accept people's emotions as good arguments.

I think you need to say what the argument was about, what the context was. There are some facets of human existence where logic alone isn't very helpful; depends what you were arguing about.

if you believe something is true, then doesn't that make it objectively true?

yes, obviously

Was it logical to make my nephew an exploding cake that splattered him and half a dozen of his closest friends with frosting and whipped cream? No. But was it a necessary part of my relationship with my nephews? I think so. :)

I was in a debate with somebody else and eventually it got to this point where his point was unprovable. He still believed he was right though and argued that he was using metaphysics or ethos and pathos based arguments to prove his point. In return, I simply replied that none of those could logically prove anything about the subject and eventually this person just argued that I was just mentally inferior and because of that couldn't get his points. This leads to a question: should logic be the basis of debate and argumentation? I mean, after all, if you believe something is true, then doesn't that make it objectively true? Using logic to provide a common ground is just divisive and hurtful, we must accept people's emotions as good arguments.

Of course it should. Logic is the only way we can agree on anything objective. Beliefs can be relative, logic is not. Now, be quiet or I'll give you a Vulcan BITCH SLAP.

Logic is a tool for critical thinking. There are certain points where it becomes either useless or irrelevant. It could well be that you encountered one of those points with your friend.

Logic is the basis of all rational argument.
That statement is demonstrably true -- axiomatic, even. Rationality is necessarily dependent upon logic.

Conclusions drawn beyond the scope of logic are indefensible.

if you believe something is true, then doesn't that make it objectively true?
Absolutely not, and anyone who thinks so clearly doesn't know was "objective" means.

Using logic to provide a common ground is just divisive and hurtful
Sometimes people need to be hurt.

we must accept people's emotions as good arguments.
Patently false. We must do no such thing. In fact, were we to do such a thing it would largely prevent the isolation of truth in any future endeavour.

That statement is demonstrably true -- axiomatic, even. Rationality is necessarily dependent upon logic.

Quite.

Conclusions drawn beyond the scope of logic are indefensible.

I disagree. They can be defended quite easily, unless you're operating exclusively within a logical framework. Which I seriously doubt, and hope that you don't.

logic doesnt come into play with many issues that can still be argued about. Like if animals have emotions, for example. You can argue about it but logic won't come to a final conclusion. Please don't start arguing about animals having emotions.

ONe can't argue about whether love is necessary for a healthy society to develope using logic can they? It doesnt seem so.

I think you need to say what the argument was about, what the context was. There are some facets of human existence where logic alone isn't very helpful; depends what you were arguing about.
We were arguing whether or not violence is objectively wrong. I argued skepticism as it cannot be objectively wrong if one does not always logically reach that conclusion and offered examples of how certain ends of individuals have been successfully met through violence. His argument was essentially, "it is objectively true that violence is wrong but I cannot prove that it is" and that is without unfairly paraphrasing his point. Now, I don't want this thread to degenerate into one about the nature of violence and morality, I know that other individuals on this board can make better arguments than he did using something like natural rights and how violence violates those rights and more things and there are people here that can make good arguments. In fact, I am pretty sure that individuals here can logically reach the conclusion that violence is for all practical purposes a bad policy and defend his position quite well, however, the question I bring forth isn't that, it is simply about the role of logic in debate. I am not pro-violence myself, I just found myself in that position and decided to argue that position. My problem is not with his position, it is with the fact that he made bad arguments for his position and refused to own up to the fact that they were bad and just recognizing that what he believed was his own belief. I know, I should have used a blog, I apologize for that.

I dont think there can even be an objective "right and wrong"

I dont think there can even be an objective "right and wrong"

Heathen!

It largely depends on what the arguement is, as SB said, some things are outside the scope of logic and usually can't be proven either way.

To rephrase it, the problem is not one of bad beliefs but one of bad arguments to show the point.

"logic doesnt come into play with many issues that can still be argued about. Like if animals have emotions, for example. You can argue about it but logic won't come to a final conclusion. Please don't start arguing about animals having emotions."

The reason for this is because it is hard to prove it either way, so therefore there is a dead-end. Of course, one can argue the position that animals have the necessary developement to feel things based upon their brains. Whether or not animals have the mental capabilities can be objectively proved.

"ONe can't argue about whether love is necessary for a healthy society to develope using logic can they?"

It is possible to focus on psychology and how unloved babies die. However, the problem comes in with arguing something without being able to prove a point. One shouldn't use belief in the pursuit of truth but rather appeal to commonly accepted premises.

To rephrase it, the problem is not one of bad beliefs but one of bad arguments to show the point.

"logic doesnt come into play with many issues that can still be argued about. Like if animals have emotions, for example. You can argue about it but logic won't come to a final conclusion. Please don't start arguing about animals having emotions."

The reason for this is because it is hard to prove it either way, so therefore there is a dead-end. Of course, one can argue the position that animals have the necessary developement to feel things based upon their brains. Whether or not animals have the mental capabilities can be objectively proved.

"ONe can't argue about whether love is necessary for a healthy society to develope using logic can they?"

It is possible to focus on psychology and how unloved babies die. However, the problem comes in with arguing something without being able to prove a point. One shouldn't use belief in the pursuit of truth but rather appeal to commonly accepted premises.

but that only makes it belief and not an objective truth.

I dont think there can even be an objective "right and wrong"
If we do not argue with the one premise that reality exists then you are correct. However, most arguments are based upon this one premise. The whole problem is logic vs truthiness, if there were other things involved then we could agree to disagree, however, he didn't do that and there is where the problem comes in.

but that only makes it belief and not an objective truth.
Not really, after all, emotions can be defined using the standpoint of reality existing as being the result of mental processes. If an individual were using the standpoint that reality does not necessarily exist then you have a point, however, the premise of reality is accepted.

A healthy society is usually seen as a society that is successful in the manner that success is usually defined, such as economically, technologicall, quality of life and etc. It is possible that one can argue that without love all of those features of success are less than a society with love.

If we do not argue with the one premise that reality exists then you are correct. However, most arguments are based upon this one premise. The whole problem is logic vs truthiness, if there were other things involved then we could agree to disagree, however, he didn't do that and there is where the problem comes in.

Truthiness? Don't you mean truth value?

logic doesnt come into play with many issues that can still be argued about. Like if animals have emotions, for example. You can argue about it but logic won't come to a final conclusion. Please don't start arguing about animals having emotions.
But logic tells us exactly where that argument should go.

Logic says: "We don't have enough information to draw a conclusion on this issue."

There. That's the logical result of the debate. There's no need for further discussion until new evidence arises.

ONe can't argue about whether love is necessary for a healthy society to develope using logic can they? It doesnt seem so.
Absolutely we could. We'd just need information about societies that developed with or without it to see what happened.

The only thing logic doesn't do is speculate, but speculation doesn't tell us anything, so it's not much of a loss.

It largely depends on what the arguement is, as SB said, some things are outside the scope of logic and usually can't be proven either way.
Which is why I took a position of skepticism. Can an unprovable point really be accepted as valid by both sides? Of course not! I tried to make sure that my claims were correct and even did so quite rigorously. However, making a judgement on something outside the scope of logic is simply a belief. It is possible to argue that abortion is murder but you would never want somebody to argue "I believe abortion is murder therefore it is" would you? It makes for an impossible discussion.

Hmm... there's no excuse for bad arguments, an "I say so" just doesn't cut it because you may say something else and then where will we be?

MUST logic be the base of all arguments or actions? No, we're human and humans have always acted upon our emoutions for good or for ill, sometimes it means we go further than logically we could, other times we manage to crash pretty hard when logic informed us we would.

Logic can also lead to some pretty silly conclusions in and of itself at times.

The trick is using wisdom to figure out which road to take and abandon ship BEFORE you crash.

Truthiness? Don't you mean truth value?
No, I am refering to steven colbert. "Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.'"

No, I am refering to steven colbert. "Truthiness is 'What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true.'"

Ah. Don't remember him saying that.

It largely depends on what the arguement is, as SB said, some things are outside the scope of logic and usually can't be proven either way.

I doubt they were arguing Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or the solution to the Turing halting problem....

Hmm... there's no excuse for bad arguments, an "I say so" just doesn't cut it because you may say something else and then where will we be?

MUST logic be the base of all arguments or actions? No, we're human and humans have always acted upon our emoutions for good or for ill, sometimes it means we go further than logically we could, other times we manage to crash pretty hard when logic informed us we would.

Logic can also lead to some pretty silly conclusions in and of itself at times.

The trick is using wisdom to figure out which road to take and abandon ship BEFORE you crash.
I would agree with you on actions. I respect the right for all individuals to make their choices based upon whatever they believe. However, to make arguments on just belief is rather annoying.

Logic can be bad if improper premises are chosen. I never denied that belief is a possibility for human action, I just think that if one is to argue something that they must make solid logical points. The individuals here understand this quite well. Even as you argue against pure logic you are using logic by taking your premise and making the rationale clear to opponents.

Ah. Don't remember him saying that.
I just took it from wiki

truthiness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness#Wikiality)

As you can see, it is a more obscure quote from him that I used because I couldn't find a better one and didn't feel like looking harder.

Here, I found a better definition "The quality by which something is known or believed emotionally or instinctively, without regard to evidence or rational thought" from wiktionary (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness)

I dont think there can even be an objective "right and wrong"
I knew someone would say this. Someone always does. :rolleyes:

I doubt they were arguing Godel's Incompleteness Theorem or the solution to the Turing halting problem....

Why not? Godel and Turing's work are fun to debate.

logic is a tool that just like any other tool has its place in our lives. when used correctly it is very powerful and can show us the error in our emotional response to things (for example) used incorrectly it can lead us into stupid decision that do nothing to enhance the quality of our lives (its illogical to make an exploding cake)

some arguments require that emotions and intuition be taken into consideration, some require that you ignore your emotional response.

However, to make arguments on just belief is rather annoying.
Depends upon what you are arguing. Debating on this board (and in what sounds like your argument with your friend) logic is probably the only true reed to lean on.

Using logic to argue with your wife over who has to take the garbage out will get you basnished to the couch. ;)

Logic can be bad if improper premises are chosen. I never denied that belief is a possibility for human action, I just think that if one is to argue something that they must make solid logical points. The individuals here understand this quite well. Even as you argue against pure logic you are using logic by taking your premise and making the rationale clear to opponents.
Let me clarify on that, when I say that logic is not the ONLY method of argument, I am noting that humans are emotional creatures and ARE swayed by arguments of emotions. Arguments from pathos as opposed to logos have been used and they are a very powerful tool, in some areas.

Science and philosophy arguments are, of course, the domain of logos, logic and reason because it deals with what is.

Politics and religion have large pathos overtones.

Arguing with your spouce is an pathos domain... unless you like sleeping on the couch. :D

Depends upon what you are arguing. Debating on this board (and in what sounds like your argument with your friend) logic is probably the only true reed to lean on.

Using logic to argue with your wife over who has to take the garbage out will get you basnished to the couch. ;)

Let me clarify on that, when I say that logic is not the ONLY method of argument, I am noting that humans are emotional creatures and ARE swayed by arguments of emotions. Arguments from ethos as opposed to pathos have been used and they are a very powerful tool, in some areas.

Science and philosophy arguments are, of course, the domain of pathos, logic and reason because it deals with what is.

Politics and religion have large ethos overtones.

Arguing with your spouce is an ethos domain... unless you like sleeping on the couch. :D
I don't think that there can be any dispute on whether or not other things work. Appeals to other aspects of humanity can be effective, depending on the audience, however, in a philosophy debate it is intellectually dishonest to try to use anything but logic as was going on in the situation. Really though, I have never liked to be subject to the other appeals, I don't mind using them but whenever somebody uses pathos I get sort of annoyed as it is traditionally used by politicians to get one's judgement to just go out the window so that you just accept what they have accepted without really thinking. As well, I do recognize that you are a very intelligent individual, however, I do think you got some of the definitions for the appeals mixed up. Logos is an appeal to logic and pathos to emotion, ethos is just an appeal to the one's authority or authority backing a position. Most people don't know what the appeals are though so it is no big deal.

That statement is demonstrably true -- axiomatic, even. Rationality is necessarily dependent upon logic.

Conclusions drawn beyond the scope of logic are indefensible.

Which logic are you referring to? A certain Newton da Costa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_da_Costa) could have a thing or two to teach you about para-consistent logic.

Logic is not a single unified axiomatic system. It is a set of such systems which tend to be mutually incompatible. As such all conclusions are drawn beyond the scope of some logic. Do you want to say that all conclusions are indefensible?

logic doesnt come into play with many issues that can still be argued about. Like if animals have emotions, for example. You can argue about it but logic won't come to a final conclusion.

that's a problem with your premises then and not with logic. logic works just fine, thank you very much

I don't think that there can be any dispute on whether or not other things work. Appeals to other aspects of humanity can be effective, depending on the audience, however, in a philosophy debate it is intellectually dishonest to try to use anything but logic as was going on in the situation. Really though, I have never liked to be subject to the other appeals, I don't mind using them but whenever somebody uses pathos I get sort of annoyed as it is traditionally used by politicians to get one's judgement to just go out the window so that you just accept what they have accepted without really thinking.
Quite right, and it's very important to know when you're being subjected to them so you can judge them. I was just noting that logic is not the only mode of argument and that there are places and times where, to win the argument, you need to use the other domains.

But, yes, a philisophical debate IS the wrong place for an argument based upon emotions.

As well, I do recognize that you are a very intelligent individual, however, I do think you got some of the definitions for the appeals mixed up. Logos is an appeal to logic and pathos to emotion, ethos is just an appeal to the one's authority or authority backing a position. Most people don't know what the appeals are though so it is no big deal.
Erk... you're right, fixed that. Thank you.

that's a problem with your premises then and not with logic. logic works just fine, thank you very much
Of course, you are right, logic does work fine. One can logically argue that some animals have emotions so long as one accepts that reality is real and that science is an acceptable study of reality in which one can go into animal psychology.

so long as one accepts that reality is real

sure, you couldn't actually do much of anything if someone were really committed to the negation of that idea. but actuallying taking that seriously requires rather a lot of work on their part - a sort of constant struggle against themselves and their immediate overwhelming sense of reality of all that stuff they perceive. if they can keep it up, they could probably be treated as functionally mad by everyone else.

voted on none of the above (IE pancaes).

It's something of both. Aristotle (I think) had three legs to arguement. Emotion, Logic, and Morals (Ethos, Pathos, and Logos).

sure, you couldn't actually do much of anything if someone were really committed to the negation of that idea.

Yes, you can. Ask them why they care.

Why not? Godel and Turing's work are fun to debate.

Oh, absolutely. It's just not very common.

Which logic are you referring to? A certain Newton da Costa could have a thing or two to teach you about para-consistent logic.

Logic is not a single unified axiomatic system. It is a set of such systems which tend to be mutually incompatible. As such all conclusions are drawn beyond the scope of some logic. Do you want to say that all conclusions are indefensible?

Really. And I'm sure you're prepared to back this up by demonstrating mutually exclusive conclusions arising from multiple equally valid self-consistent systems rooted in axiomatic premises and operating via legitimate rules or equivalencies.

I'll believe it when I see a verified proof.

EDIT: Having spent some time researching paraconsistent logic, it seems to me that it is just a pointless runaround on the essential fact that two mutually exclusive material propositions simply cannot be jointly true. Period. In addition, negations in paraconsistent logic theory aren't really negations, they're subcontrary operators, which are not the same as real negations.

Also, you may be taking it beyond scope. Similar to mysticists who attempt to self-justify by misapplying quantum theory out of its scientifically supported applicable areas, or anti-upload/AI advocates who argue based on a flawed miscomprehension of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, taking da Costa's paraconsistent logic theory and extrapolating it to mean that most or all beliefs are equally 'logical', or that self-contradictions are not fundamental flaws in a logical system has a high potential to be merely simplistic overextrapolation of a technical concept.

Really. And I'm sure you're prepared to back this up by demonstrating mutually exclusive conclusions arising from multiple equally valid self-consistent systems rooted in axiomatic premises and operating via legitimate rules or equivalencies.

I'll believe it when I see a verified proof.

I refer you to the article on Newton da Costa that I linked to in my post.

I quote
Basically da Costa and Doria define a formal sentence [P=NP]' which is the same as P=NP in the standard model for arithmetic; however, because [P=NP]' by its very definition includes a disjunct that is not refutable in ZFC, [P=NP]' is not refutable in ZFC, so ZFC + [P=NP]' is consistent (assuming that ZFC is). The paper then continues by an informal proof of the implication

If ZFC + [P=NP]' is consistent, then so is ZFC + [P=NP].

However, a review by Ralf Schindler points this last step is too short and contains a gap. A recently published (2006) clarification by the authors shows that their intent was to exhibit a conditional result that was dependent on a naïvely plausible condition. The 2003 conditional result can be reformulated, according to da Costa and Doria 2006 (in press), as

If ZFC + [P=NP]' is omega-consistent, then ZFC + [P=NP] is consistent.

So far no formal argument has been constructed to show that ZFC + [P=NP]' is omega-consistent.

Satisfied?

a) I only understand a sort of sketch of what that means. I get the basic flow of concepts (helped by knowing what P and NP are), but not the detailed implications.
b) Read your own quote. It is based on a naively plausible premise, and restated can be expressed as a conditional whose independent term remains unproven thus far. It proves nothing as of yet.