A Little Logic is a Dangerous Thing

[Roy]

[TOZ]

I weep for the country I supposedly protect.

[Username17]

All logic really states is that "if your premises are true, then the following is true."

And that is why we do not use Logic in Science!

Because frankly, that's bullshit. It's not good enough to stick to things that we are certain of and to retain that certainty. Because science is too fucking awesome to be held back just because we lack certainty about anything.

We're beyond petty crap like having "true" conclusions, because what we actually do is make models that are predictive because they are good enough[. And then we refine these models to make them even better. Logic stops when it lacks certainty. We don't.

Because logic sucks, and science is awesome. The Scientific Method does not concern itself with the truth or falseness of premises, nor does it make logically sound arguments ever. Logic cannot even tell you whether people other than yourself are real. It cannot ever make Descartes' Demons go away or get you out of Plato's Cave. Science not only gets you out of the cave, but it invents a fucking flashlight so that if you want to go back and explore that cave you can.

Not with "Truth" or "Certainty" but with good enough.

-Username17

[Gelare]

The Scientific Method is an alternate theory of epistemology from Logic that functions differently. It accepts lesser degrees of certainty in exchange for being able to make light bulbs, penicillin, and jet planes.

Cool.

[RandomCasualty2]

And that is why we do not use Logic in Science!

Because frankly, that's bullshit. It's not good enough to stick to things that we are certain of and to retain that certainty. Because science is too fucking awesome to be held back just because we lack certainty about anything.

I think you're missing the point.

We actually do use that logic in science. It's actually part of the basis of the scientific method, where you take a hypothesis and test it. In other words, you're looking for a contradiction to your hypothesis to disprove it. Granted it doesn't go through a long logic proof, but that's the concept. But basically it involves plugging in premises and using existing evidence and if you get a contradiction, you know that some of your premises are garbage. But you may not know that until you've specifically disproven a hypothesis. It's why there are sometimes erroneous scientific theories that persist awhile until someone proves them to be false.

Science does have premises actually. It has a lot of them. We assume that basically the laws of the universe are similar everywhere. The speed of light doesn't suddenly change in Alpha Centauri. And yeah, science accepts that if that premise isn't true, then a lot of conclusions dealing with astro physics just aren't correct.

Logic is really basic, it's in everything... even if you don't actively see it.

And science is certainly not an illogical process.

[Maj]

Science utilizes induction (as well as deduction), which is not considered logic in some circles. While I think it's retarded, I also think it's just a matter of semantics. We have to have some sort of rules for establishing the value of a general conclusion or else we can't know anything directly observable (like the sun will rise tomorrow - in the east even).

[Username17]

That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise.

This is why we as scientists told logical philosophers to take a flying leap and went off to make our own epistemology where certainty was not required.

There are an unlimited number of potential models to cover any observable body of data. Logic literally cannot select one for you as best, and calls it a fallacy if you make any such allegiance for yourself.

Now we also use the word "logical" to mean roughly the same thing as "reasonable" and the Scientific Method is nothing if not reasonable. But that's where the similarities end. Formal logic has no place in science once you get away from the narrow confines of mathematical proof.

The affirmation that the sun will rise is literally a formal fallacy. It has no more logical validity than the statement that you will roll a natural 20 on this roll because you have rolled a natural 20 at some time in the past. That doesn't mean the sun won't rise. In fact, I will bet my left pinky that it will. It is just that formal logic is incapable of giving me that certainty. But science can give me that certainty. Not the 100% absolute certainty that formal logic demands, but certainty so nearly absolute that it scarcely makes any difference.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

The affirmation that the sun will rise is literally a formal fallacy. It has no more logical validity than the statement that you will roll a natural 20 on this roll because you have rolled a natural 20 at some time in the past. That doesn't mean the sun won't rise. In fact, I will bet my left pinky that it will. It is just that formal logic is incapable of giving me that certainty. But science can give me that certainty. Not the 100% absolute certainty that formal logic demands, but certainty so nearly absolute that it scarcely makes any difference.

Science doesn't really "prove" the sun will rise either. It has been rising forever so it's generally accepted that it will. Of course, science also accepts that a sun could go nova or supernova. So scientifically speaking, it's possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow. It's very very unlikely, but it's still possible.

And a logician working on the premises.

• If there is no astronomical disaster involving the sun or the earth, then the sun will rise tomorrow.
• An astronomical disaster involving the sun or the earth is almost impossible.

And you could reach the conclusion that it's extremely likely that the sun with rise tomorrow. Which is exactly the same conclusion that science comes up with.

Science and logic are very similar. Both make assumptions and have rules that are assumed to be true, and then try to disprove those assumptions. From that, they can draw conclusions.

[Tequila Sunrise]

You know what's really pissing me off these days? People calling shit "fallacies" and calling people on using fallacies. In fact, even the word "fallacy" hacks me right off. Because you know what? Most of this shit isn't a fallacy, and even if it was the fact of something being a fallacy doesn't actually stop it from being a good argument in all cases.

I feel the same way. Every time someone mentions Stormwind or Oberoni, I want to tell them to perform fallatio on their favorite fallacy.

TS

[Bigode]

Science doesn't really "prove" the sun will rise either. It has been rising forever so it's generally accepted that it will. Of course, science also accepts that a sun could go nova or supernova. So scientifically speaking, it's possible that the sun won't rise tomorrow. It's very very unlikely, but it's still possible.

Way to miss the point. Of course science doesn't try producing "ironclad proof", as it's impossible. It does, however, set the circumstances on which it's extremely likely a star'll go nova - and assumes it won't in any others.

Case study and origin of my use of "ironclad proof":

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economic ... hyaust.htm[/url]]There is however a more serious flaw in Rothbard's welfare economics - a flaw which again flows from his behaviorist insistence that only preferences demonstrated in action are real. Thus, Rothbard rejects the argument that the envy of a third party vitiates the principle that voluntary exchange increases social utility: "We cannot, however, deal with hypothetical utilities divorced from concrete action. We may, as praxeologists, deal only with utilities that we can deduce from the concrete behavior of human beings. A person's 'envy.' unembodied in action, becomes pure moonshine from a praxeological point of view... How he feels about the exchanges made by others cannot be demonstrated unless he commits an invasive act. Even if he publishes a pamphlet denouncing these exchanges, we have no ironclad proof that this is not a joke or a deliberate lie."[22] Indeed, Rothbard could have taken this principle further. When two people sign a contract, do they actually demonstrate their preference for the terms of the contract? Perhaps they merely demonstrate their preference for signing their name on the piece of paper in front of them. There is no "ironclad proof" that the signing of one's name on a piece of paper is not a joke, or an effort to improve one's penmanship.

---

Actually, the only thing misplaced on Oberoni and Stormwind's the word "fallacy" itself, as they're useful shorthand for referencing very real problems in RPG discussion.

[CatharzGodfoot]

If only we were made to think in probabilistic terms, we would not have found ourselves stuck in a mire of categorical rules and the various logics that attempt to encompass it.

[MartinHarper]

Just because they like to eat babies doesn't make their view on whether or not wizards can learn spells off of arcane scrolls made by dragons wrong.

True. However, if a person makes bad judgements in one area (the morality of eating babies) they are more likely to make bad judgements in another area (the casting abilities of wizards).

[Kaelik]

True. However, if a person makes bad judgements in one area (the morality of eating babies) they are more likely to make bad judgements in another area (the casting abilities of wizards).

No, not really.

Just because I don't think of other people as having intrinsic worth doesn't mean I can't tell what Wizards can do.

[Talisman]

True. However, if a person makes bad judgements in one area (the morality of eating babies) they are more likely to make bad judgements in another area (the casting abilities of wizards).

No, not really.

Just because I don't think of other people as having intrinsic worth doesn't mean I can't tell what Wizards can do.

Agreed, because it's apples and oranges (or, more accurately, morals and logic).

It would be more accurate to say that people who make bad judgements regarding wizard casting are likely to make bad judgements regarding fighter skills. Both are logical issues (albeit often tempered with emotion).

[Cynic]

It would be more accurate to say that people who make bad judgements regarding wizard casting are likely to make bad judgements regarding fighter skills. Both are logical issues (albeit often tempered with emotion).

Even this actually requires a premise to work from. It's not completely accurate to say because of judgments about wizards, then judgments about fighter.

[MartinHarper]

Just because I don't think of other people as having intrinsic worth doesn't mean I can't tell what Wizards can do.

Correct. It is entirely possible for someone to be unaware that babies are not a sometime food, while being fully aware of the details of Wizards in some game. That's why I said 'more likely'.

[Kaelik]

Correct. It is entirely possible for someone to be unaware that babies are not a sometime food, while being fully aware of the details of Wizards in some game. That's why I said 'more likely'.

Except you are wrong. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

Nothing at all. Evil people who are still alive tend to be smart. Not retarded. Any rational being (IE all non-crazies) are going have those two things be completely independent of each other.

No correlation whatsoever.

[Manxome]

I feel it needs to be pointed out that certain lines of reasoning are crap whether you're dealing with absolute certainty or not.

Science doesn't just say that the sun will probably rise tomorrow, it says that the sun will probably rise because that would be consistent with precedent. The fact that the sun has risen every day of our lives (and various other empirical observations) count as evidence that it will probably do so tomorrow, too.

If someone says that the sun will rise tomorrow because it rained today, that statement lacks a certain quality of cogency that the previous statement has. Most people would probably say that the claim that the sun will rise because it rained is a non sequitor and therefore an invalid line of reasoning, because the cited evidence has no apparent relationship to the conclusion. They might even call the reasoning "fallacious."

If it's extremely important to you to avoid words like "logic" or "fallacy" in explaining why it's OK to infer that the sun will likely rise tomorrow based on the fact that it has every previous day of our lives but not OK to infer it based on totally unconnected observations, then fine, but that's a semantic issue. There are still forms of reasoning that are correct and others that are incorrect and calling someone on using an incorrect form is something that I totally support (assuming that it actually is incorrect).

Now, I agree that people lots of times claim that some line of reasoning is invalid for silly or confused reasons, and that that ought to stop. And maybe the above points were obvious to everyone else in the thread. I just want to make sure that the difference between correct and incorrect reasoning doesn't get lost in the discussion of specific formalized systems.

[MartinHarper]

(I'm ignoring special cases around plane crashes on desert islands)

Evil people who are still alive tend to be smart. Not retarded.

Eating babies is retarded. Cannibalism is bad for you. Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition. Killing babies is a high profile crime that carries a long jail sentence or the death penalty. It's not a smart thing to do. Someone who is dumb enough to eat babies, and get caught, has provided the world with a great deal of evidence that they are criminally stupid. Citing that evidence in a debate is entirely reasonable and persuasive, despite being a 'logical fallacy'.

[Kaelik]

(I'm ignoring special cases around plane crashes on desert islands)

Evil people who are still alive tend to be smart. Not retarded.

Eating babies is retarded. Cannibalism is bad for you. Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition. Killing babies is a high profile crime that carries a long jail sentence or the death penalty. It's not a smart thing to do. Someone who is dumb enough to eat babies, and get caught, has provided the world with a great deal of evidence that they are criminally stupid. Citing that evidence in a debate is entirely reasonable and persuasive, despite being a 'logical fallacy'.

Right, which is why anyone who eats babies on a regular basis and is still alive (IE uncaught, and still doing it) is a fucking genius.

[Tshern]

To summarize: armchair logicians suck.

Hear, hear!

[MartinHarper]

Right, which is why anyone who eats babies on a regular basis and is still alive (IE uncaught, and still doing it) is a fucking genius.

Cannibalism is still bad for your health. They're probably just a fucking lucky retard.
Gah, that's pedantic of me.

[Kaelik]

Cannibalism is still bad for your health. They're probably just a fucking lucky retard.
Gah, that's pedantic of me.

Or, they don't just eat babies, or they make sure the babies are not sick, or whatever.

The point is that evil is selected out if stupid, and good protects dumb shits.

So if all you know is that someone is still a non imprisoned member of society, and that they are "evil," then you also know they are smarter then the average person.

Similarly, if you know an evil society kills all people X, and has for the last 200 years, and is still at the top of the league in national power, then you know that evil society must be very efficient or doing something right.

Because otherwise they would have either been overthrown or lost power.

[Talisman]

Babies are difficult to acquire in comparison to other sources of nutrition.

That is a truly entertaining quotation, especially taken out of context.

Sigged.