PARENT GROUPS ASK MARYLAND TO STOP NEW SEX ED LESSONS

As an analyst, by nature and training (computer analyst to be specific)

I have had many classes in Logic, and logical constructs. I cannot resist the arguments being made in your posts!

If you don’t mind, may I join the conversation, from a strictly “Logical” or “Debate” perspective?

I certainly will not mind. You provide an insightful and interesting analysis of the arguments I've made.

You said “It seemed as if you were merely expressing your own frustration - a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” This statement is so full of assumptions that I cannot resist examining it closer. A) You assume the other poster is frustrated. B) You assume any frustration the other poster is caused by you and not say a toothache. C) You assume that this frustration is similar to other frustrations you have observed with others who were dealing with you. I) you admit that others are frustrated by you II) You assume this is for a common cause III) You assume that the reason for this frustration that you observe is that all the other people you have frustrated cannot follow your “Logic”. IV) You assume that your intellect is superior to every one’s who is frustrated by you. V) You conclude that this poster is frustrated with you for the same reason that others have been frustrated with you because you are using logical constructs they are not capable of following. D) You assume you are logical and everyone else is not.

You're correct. But why did I make that remark? Did I make it to advance some point? No, because it doesn't advance any point. I made it because it's always nice to rub someone's (apparant) frustration in his face. Doing this might well result in the person becoming more and more irritated, and he might well self-destruct before the audience by making an idiotic argument. Of course, this doesn't apply equally to online debates. But I've utilized it so often that is has almost become a second nature for me. If someone appears frustrated, I confront him with it. If someone wants to stop the debate, I do the same. "Why would you want to stop? Don't you have an answer?"

Now you might think that this isn't entirely fair. But I distinguish between two kinds of debates. Debates between relatively like-minded people, in which both sides genuinely try to come to a certain resolution. This might be a debate between you and me about what the best way ios to combat international terrorism. Sometimes, the dispute is not rooted in some ultimate agreement, and in such cases, argument is essentially pointless (if you don't believe that a debate is an end in itself, like I do), because the two sides aren't going to agree anyway. In such cases, I debate only for the fun of it. And, since no resolution is forthcoming anyway, I try to enjoy the debate as much as possible.

From this statement we can assume that either the majority of the people are not logical, or you are not logical and frustrate everyone else who is.

I disagree with this interpretation. This statement rests upon the following assumptions and fallacies:

1. Assumption: The frustration of those people had something to do with logic.
2. Assumption: The people I've debated are a representative sample of the population.
3. Assumption: The frustration of people about alleged illogical behavior on the other side proves that the behavior is indeed illogical.
4. Fallacy, false dilemma: logical people can disagree with each other, and even get frustrated over the fact that they can't resolve their disagreement

You assert that homosexuality is not a “character, and personality issue” you offer no supporting evidence for this bald assertion, and continue on to build upon this bald assertion with “While those can be somehow molded“ Following an assertion with the statement that if your assertion can be proven wrong, your argument fails is like painting a great big bulls eye on your logical weaknesses, don’t do this (In a debate I would have slaughtered you with this)

Absolutely. But it's a calculation. I'm weighing the time that it will cost me to provide support for what I said against the chances that the person has the slightest idea of what he's talking about (and thus might be able to contest what I said). I don't have an infinite amount of time. It's an question of choice. If I'm debating someone who is well-informed or intelligent, like you, I'll be more careful. Otherwise, not so much. Many people will let you get away with sloppy reasoning without even noticing.

I would reply to this with “I know a therapist who decided he was homosexual after 15 years of marriage , he lived as a homosexual for 6 years, then went straight again. He basically changed his mind, and decided he was not homosexual anymore.” (While this is a true story. But I am using it as an example here) see how quickly the “Bald Assertion” arguments fall by the way side? This is a poor debate technique as it allows your opponent with a single story (even an exceptional story which is not the norm) to prove your point wrong because you spoke in absolutes about a bald assertion.

I'll concede the general point to you that talking in absolutes is potentially dangerous to the health of one's argument. However, in the case that you mention, I may well argue that your therapist might be a bi-sexual, or that he had a strange period of confusion while his sexual orientation did not change (most therapists need therapy themselves, so it seems).

While you assume an answer, all the debater of the opposite side would have to say is “Well, I struggled with same gender attraction as a teenager, but I am happy with the choice I made.” And BOOM all your arguments come crashing down around your ears because you allowed the opponent to utterly destroy your arguments with a personal story. Worse yet, the story does not even have to be true, merely believable, since it is about what he thinks! The worst for you is, your opponent can get away Scott free with saying this as it is un-checkable, and if anyone says later “Did you…” he / she can say “You know that was just debate…”

Absolutely. But as Sun Tzu (or whoever it was) said: "Know thy enemy". While opponents in a debate aren't enemies, the same rules apply. Let's factor in the opposition and the audience. I find it extremely unlikely that any one of the participants in that discussion would admit to such a thing. They aren't particularly fond of homosexuality, so such an admission would be strange. And indeed, nothing happened. You have to evaluate such arguments on a case-by-case basis.

In conclusion, you are not using “Logic”, and you are not using the definition of “Informal Logic” I looked up earlier. From just the information in this post, I could tell you why you frustrate everyone else, but I also know from this post that you will not accept that. You will continue to believe you are the one who is logical.

Probably. But I'll defer to your judgement, since you are an intelligent and impartial third-party observer.

May I ping you to join in debates that I am going to be in on FR?

It would be a pleasure.

May I have a list of the topics you consider important and your position on them?

Political topics? Right now? Very well.
War on Terror: support
Individual rights: support
Free market: support
Government services/health care: oppose
War on Drugs: oppose
Guns: support
Government regulation: oppose
Right to die: support
Tougher crime laws: suppport

I don't know whether this will suffice, or whether this was what you asked for, but I tried.

Thank you very much for the amusement you provided me today.

Thank you for your nifty analysis. Your skill impresses.

>> I appreciate the fact that you took some time to do research, but I disagree with
>>your conclusions, it has nothing to do with the vocabulary.
Words mean things, so vocabulary is indeed important.

“If you can’t say what you mean, you can’t mean what you say” – The Last emperor

>> Formal logic is deductive, and informal logic is inductive.
I see nothing about inductive and deductive reasoning in the definition of Logic ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Logic )

>> If you can prove the premises in formal logic, then the conclusion is indisputable.
That is in the definition of “Logic”

>> On the other hand, informal logic is inherently uncertain.
Uncertain Logic is not Logic; it is Illogic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogic )

>> Here's an example of formal logic (you know this one):
>>
>>All men are mortal
>>Socrates is a man
>>Socrates is mortal

That’s a Syllogism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=syllogism )

>> Here's an example of informal logic:
>>
>>We were told that we went to Iraq because there were weapons of mass destruction.
>>There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
>>Therefore, our government lied to us.

Actually this is an example of illogic. Here is an example of logic

1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; they used them on the Kurds.
2. Iraq’s dictator refused to prove they had been destroyed.
3. Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.

How about this?

1. We have found tons of Weapons of mass destruction in scattered locations in small quantities.
2. The Main Stream Media (MSM) knows this.
3. The MSM Lied to us.

>> You can see what's going on here.
Yes, I can.

>>Even if you do prove that points 1 and 2 are true, point 3 doesn't follow automatically,
>>as it would if we were utilizing formal logic.
So, it’s useless?

>>Formal logic is seldom used, because it's impractical.
If I were to program using informal logic, I would be unemployed. (grin) Formal logic is not only practical, it’s what all the conveniences you take for granted are based on (or else you would never know if the light was going to come on when you flipped the switch) Logic is what makes the real world run regardless of what you may believe.

Logic Is.

Truth Is.

Reality Is.

You perception may vary.

Words mean things, so vocabulary is indeed important.

Yeah, but it has nothing to do with whether something is formal logic, or informal logic.

I see nothing about inductive and deductive reasoning in the definition of Logic ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Logic )

Formal logic is deductive, as your own website states.

Uncertain Logic is not Logic; it is Illogic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illogic )

Illogic: 'the state or quality of being illogical; illogicality:'
'A lack of logic. '
'invalid or incorrect reasoning'

Nope, I wasn't talking about incorrect reasoning, but about reasoning of which the conclusions follow with a certain degree of probability, rather than with certainty. I learned that it is called informal logic, and that is how I will call it.

Actually this is an example of illogic. Here is an example of logic 1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; they used them on the Kurds. 2. Iraq’s dictator refused to prove they had been destroyed. 3. Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction.

Ah! But the problem is, the conclusion doesn't follow with certainty. It is still uncertain. Saddam might have destroyed his WMD's without telling the world, in order to make Iran and the Kurds think that he still had them. So according to your own argument, this would be 'illogic'.

How about this? 1. We have found tons of Weapons of mass destruction in scattered locations in small quantities. 2. The Main Stream Media (MSM) knows this. 3. The MSM Lied to us.

Still no absolute certainty. Even if the probability (that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true) is 99%, that is still very different from the 100% that formal logic gives us.

If I were to program using informal logic, I would be unemployed. (grin) Formal logic is not only practical, it’s what all the conveniences you take for granted are based on (or else you would never know if the light was going to come on when you flipped the switch) Logic is what makes the real world run regardless of what you may believe.

Well, I'm thankful that you are taking care of it so that I don't have to. But we were talking about debates. And we debate using informal logic. If we were using formal logic, all the arguments would be about the evidence, and not about how to interpret the evidence, since the conclusion follows with certainty.

Logic Is. Truth Is. Reality Is. You perception may vary.

The question is not whethere there is some absolute truth out there, but how we can argue about it, using it, interpreting it.

>>But why did I make that remark? … I made it because it's always nice to rub someone's (apparant) frustration in his face.

Making a comment designed to “Get the Goat” of an opponent in a debate while a useful tactic at times is ill advised when it opens your points up to rebuttal.

>>Now you might think that this isn't entirely fair.
“All is fair…” but not all is effective.

>>Sometimes, the dispute is not rooted in some ultimate agreement, and in such cases,
>>argument is essentially pointless (if you don't believe that a debate is an end in itself,
>>like I do), because the two sides aren't going to agree anyway. In such cases, I debate
>>only for the fun of it. And, since no resolution is forthcoming anyway, I try to enjoy
>>the debate as much as possible.

Debate can indeed be enjoyable, and instructive. I personally however have limits on the tactics I will employ when debating both publicly, and privately so those I debate may also enjoy the debate (I get more repeat debaters that way.)

My Father taught me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” so I will agree to disagree with someone when they stubbornly cling to a position that has become untenable because I value their continued friendship more than a cheap victory, but that’s me.

>>I disagree with this interpretation. This statement rests upon the following assumptions and fallacies:
>>1. Assumption: The frustration of those people had something to do with logic.
Logic was already brought up in your posts as a point about which people got frustrated. I neglected to go back to prior posts and include them, do you want me to?

>>2. Assumption: The people I've debated are a representative sample of the population.
The only representation I was talking about were the people who were frustrated with you. “a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” You provided the sample, not me.

>>3. Assumption: The frustration of people about alleged illogical behavior on the other side proves that the behavior is indeed illogical.
1. Behavior is either logical, or illogical.
2. Logical people will understand and concur with logical behavior or speech.
3. Logical people cannot be frustrated by logic.

1. You frustrated the people in this sample (regardless of what this sample represents).
2. You were making arguments and having a debate.
3. Your Debate technique frustrated the people you were debating with.

1. Logical people cannot be frustrated by Logic.
2. A group of people were Frustrated by these arguments.
3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

This is Logical.

>>If I'm debating someone who is well-informed or intelligent, like you,
>>I'll be more careful. Otherwise, not so much. Many people will let you get away
>>with sloppy reasoning without even noticing.

Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down” to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact when you speak rather than much speaking.

>>I'll concede the general point to you that talking in absolutes is potentially dangerous
>>to the health of one's argument.
Thank you.

>>I may well argue that your therapist might be a bi-sexual, or that he had a strange
>>period of confusion while his sexual orientation did not change (most therapists need
>>therapy themselves, so it seems).

But since you do not know the person in question, any such arguments would be dismissed a sheer supposition on your part. (Assuming facts which are not in evidence…) As for this man, nope, he was hetero before, and after. A six year long confusion? Good luck proving that one, and if you can what happens to temporary insanity as a plea? (Your Honor, I was temporarily insane for the six years I planned this murder.) As for the therapy for therapists, I agree completely.

>>But as Sun Tzu (or whoever it was) said: "Know thy enemy".
Sun Tzu – The art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html )
There are five points in which victory may be predicted:
1. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
2. He who understands how to fight in accordance with the strength of antagonistic forces will be victorious.
3. He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.
4. He who is well prepared and lies in wait for an enemy who is not well prepared will be victorious.
5. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.
It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known.

Therefore, I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

Sun Tzu, brilliant man.

>>I find it extremely unlikely that any one of the participants in that discussion would admit to such a thing.

I would have and I have never wondered about my orientation. The point of debate is to win. “The enemy’s gate is down” – Ender Wiggins

>>They aren't particularly fond of homosexuality, so such an admission would be strange.
Neither am I and I would have not even paused before answering.

>>And indeed, nothing happened. You have to evaluate such arguments on a case-by-case basis.
Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot chose to be lucky…

>>Political topics? Right now? Very well.
Thank you.

War on Terror: support
Individual rights: support
Free market: support
Government services/health care: oppose
War on Drugs: oppose
Guns: support
Government regulation: oppose
Right to die: support
Tougher crime laws: support

Dang we agree. Well, I suppose I might play devils advocate some time.

Thank you again and enjoy the thread.

Making a comment designed to “Get the Goat” of an opponent in a debate while a useful tactic at times is ill advised when it opens your points up to rebuttal.

It really depends on the skill of the other debater. Sometimes, you can afford to act in this manner, and sometimes you cannot.

My Father taught me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” so I will agree to disagree with someone when they stubbornly cling to a position that has become untenable because I value their continued friendship more than a cheap victory, but that’s me.

Your father was a wise man. However, most of the time I keep the debate going, because I just don't understand why someone would have such a position. Of course, when the debate ends, I still don't understand the position...

Logic was already brought up in your posts as a point about which people got frustrated. I neglected to go back to prior posts and include them, do you want me to?

I haven't the slightest clue what I wrote, but here's the deal: people can get frustrated about logic, about the fact that they're weak debaters, the fact that the other person is insane, etc. It can be logic, but it's not necessarily logic.

The only representation I was talking about were the people who were frustrated with you. “a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” You provided the sample, not me.

Certainly. But you interpreted the fact that these people have this reaction as a sign that either people in general are illogical, or that I am. However, it could well be that I go to an insane asylum to argue with people (not true, though). In that case, the fact that they are illogical would not necessarily mean that the population at large is illogical.

1. Behavior is either logical, or illogical. 2. Logical people will understand and concur with logical behavior or speech. 3. Logical people cannot be frustrated by logic.

Spoken like a true computer programmer. You can try to use informal logic as if it was formal logic, but it will not work. There is a host of unstated assumptions in these assertions. For example, in reality, it is not so that people & behavior are either wholly logical or wholly illogical. Most people are somewhere in between. The possible frustration will increase (if the participants are frustrated by illogical arguments) as the debate goes on, because people are bound to show they illogical side.

1. Logical people cannot be frustrated by Logic.

If improperly used, logical people can be very frustrated by logic. Logic is a means, like a knife, it can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes. That isn't the case when it comes to formal logic (its reach is so limited as to prevent such abuse), but informal logic can be abused. And you would be very frustreated when it is.

3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

Or those people were illogical. Or those people really didn't know what they were talking about, even though they were logical people, and were frustrated as a result. There are a host of reasons out there.

Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down” to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact when you speak rather than much speaking.

Usually, a personal attack should not be unanswered. What better way is there to respond to such an attack, than to respond while refusing to lower yourself to the level of the other person?

But since you do not know the person in question, any such arguments would be dismissed a sheer supposition on your part. (Assuming facts which are not in evidence…) As for this man, nope, he was hetero before, and after. A six year long confusion? Good luck proving that one, and if you can what happens to temporary insanity as a plea? (Your Honor, I was temporarily insane for the six years I planned this murder

I don't deny that I would be in a weaker position once that argument has been advanced. However, I do believe that there are means to respond to such an argument. On the basis of the information that is given to you, you might come up with an explanation for the strange behavior. And while the person himself might be closer to the matter, that does not necessary mean that he is better suited to judge the matte r(though an audience will view it as such). We don't rely on first-hand accounts to make science, we rely on scientists who collect, interpret data from afar.

Sun Tzu, brilliant man.

Absolutely.

I would have and I have never wondered about my orientation. The point of debate is to win. “The enemy’s gate is down” – Ender Wiggins

But you're a semi-professional debater. Most people would not do that. I don't think I would.

Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot chose to be lucky…

You could make a calculation, take into account how likely it is that a person would use it to destroy your argument, and take the risk if it's worth it.

Thank you again and enjoy the thread.

My pleasure. I never expected this thread to spawn such an interesting debate.

>>Your father was a wise man.
Yes, I am lucky to be his son; he set such a wonderful example for me.

>>I just don't understand why someone would have such a position. Of course, when the
>>debate ends, I still don't understand the position...

For me debate is as much about education (mine and theirs) as it is about witty repartee.

When I was learning debate, one of the things I would do was practice explaining my opponent’s position until I could debate their point as well or better than they could. When you can fully understand your opponent in a debate you can a) convince them b) defeat them.

Try writing out everything Scripter says as if you were explaining it to him. Then ask him if that’s what he meant. (No one in my experience gets mad at trying to be understood, admittedly not a definitive sample, Grin) Then once he agrees that you understand what he is saying, you can discuss what you see differently.

“Perspective can never be given, only acquired.” – Me

>>I haven't the slightest clue what I wrote, but here's the deal: people can get frustrated
>>about logic, about the fact that they're weak debaters, the fact that the other person is
>>insane, etc. It can be logic, but it's not necessarily logic.

Illogical people get frustrated about logic, and logical people can get frustrated by illogic, illogical people can even be frustrated by someone else’s illogic, but a logical person will not get frustrated with another logical person.

An example?

I have pointed out flaws in your arguments and technique that would have gotten an illogical person very frustrated with me. Since we are both students of logic, you accepted my critique without rancor, and even thanked me for it.

“I am a wise man and cannot be insulted, for I recognize truth and Bow to it and ignore lies.” – Attributed to Confucius

So if there is only truth and untruth, all you have to do is be in harmony with truth, and ignore untruth and no one will be able to frustrate you.

>>But you interpreted the fact that these people have this reaction as a sign that either
>>people in general are illogical, or that I am
Yes, that was the conclusion. I now understand that you make illogical arguments just to frustrate them for an emotional thrill it gives you.

>>Spoken like a true computer programmer.
Thank you.

>>You can try to use informal logic as if it was formal logic, but it will not work.
Why not? (Grin)

>>For example, in reality, it is not so that people & behavior are either wholly logical or wholly illogical.
True, and sadly people can move from the Logical category to the Illogical with the twist of a conversation, or as a debate progresses.

>>If improperly used, logical people can be very frustrated by logic.
I’m sorry, are you saying Logic can be improperly used? I believe that “Perfect Logic” if we ever attain it cannot be misused, for that would be... Illogical (grin)

>>Logic is a means, like a knife, it can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes.
Logic is indeed amoral; people on the other hand generally are not.

>>That isn't the case when it comes to formal logic (its reach is so limited as to prevent such abuse), but informal logic can be abused.
So, Logic cannot be improperly used, while this informal, changing unpredictable logic can? Got it.

>>you would be very frustrated when it is.
I would not be frustrated as I would not be affected. I learned long ago that your (in the non specific sense of the word) perception of reality cannot negatively impact my perception of reality (nor indeed reality itself) so I shouldn’t let the inaccuracies of your perception concern me more than as an opportunity to gain more perspectives.

“Perspectives, the currency of intellectuals” – Me

>>>> 3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

>>Or those people were illogical. Or those people really didn't know what they were
>>talking about, even though they were logical people, and were frustrated as a result.
>>There are a host of reasons out there.

A logical person would not be frustrated as I am not frustrated by you but would learn of a new perspective as I am attempting to learn of this “Informal Logic”. Do you have any links to definitions?

There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who divide people into groups and those who don’t. /Humor

Actually dividing information into groups by criteria is one of the bases of modern computing. I will often begin a debate by dividing the topic along line I want to divide it on. Once my opponent has allowed me to set the battle field “as it were” the battle will be easy, and the victory swift.

For example, when debating homosexuality’s relative “Logical” merits, I will commonly state that there are only three kinds of people:
1) Religious
2) Atheists
3) Those that are in denial of the other two positions.

Most people will accept this as it is too hard to find a flaw in this division. I will follow with Most Atheists are Darwinists, which is also usually accepted. Then I start to eliminate positions. (Evil Grin) Religious people believe in a God, “God” created people with gender, gender is how we procreate, so “God” meant for us to be heterosexual in nature. (I do not care what “God” they want to quote as the logic is irrefutable, at this point most people see the trap and start trying to back pedal (grin) too late. I then point out that according to Darwin homosexuals are dead end genetically and we should just help evolution along by killing them off. Now, the only living Homosexuals are in denial, and are using their denial to confuse the issue with either religious and / or scientific arguments meant to engender support from those who do not agree with them, but agree with their arguments with the only conceivable purpose being the prolonging of their denial. At this point in the debate, the usual methods of defense for those supporting Homosexual behavior are not available to them, and often my points are conceded without further argument.

I went through this way too fast, but I hope you get the idea.

This example is so that I can show that by using logic superior to the logic of your opposition, you can reduce argument, actually get agreement by those who were in opposition to you and the opposition actually agrees to the premises that “got them into trouble” so, even illogical people can be soothed with logic. Logic is comforting, predictable, elegant, and admirable to most humans. An appeal to logic will never be belittled unless the person who is belittling it cannot understand the logic. When that happens you must simply reduce the intellectual level required for understanding until you can communicate.

>>>> Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down”
>>>>to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact
>>>>when you speak rather than much speaking.

>>Usually, a personal attack should not be unanswered.
I did not mean to imply that a personal attack should go unanswered.

What I meant was that you should elevate your logical arguments and your research and respond less, but with more accuracy. My brother does this quite well, we will be in a debate he on one side, not saying much, then out of the blue, he will nail his opponents to the floor with unassailable logic, and the debate is over.

>> We don't rely on first-hand accounts to make science, we rely on scientists who
>>collect, interpret data from afar.
Scientific discoveries are made in the first person, and then proofs are constructed, validated and reviewed.

>> But you're a semi-professional debater.
No, really stop (while signaling for more with the other hand (Grin)

>> Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot
>>chose to be lucky…

>>You could make a calculation, take into account how likely it is that a person would
>>use it to destroy your argument, and take the risk if it's worth it.

While calculation and playing the odds are better than just waiting to be lucky, Sun Tzu would agree that you should remove luck as much as possible from your debate technique.

>> My pleasure. I never expected this thread to spawn such an interesting debate.

Thank you again

When I was learning debate, one of the things I would do was practice explaining my opponent’s position until I could debate their point as well or better than they could. When you can fully understand your opponent in a debate you can a) convince them b) defeat them.

There are two kinds of positions. Legitimate positions, and illegitimate positions (this is entirely subjective). I do understand legitimate positions, fully. And there are illegitimate positions. For example, I simply cannot understand how someone would deny the existence of the Holocaust. And that's probably correct, it cannot be understood. 99% of people who argue that it does not exist, don't do that because they think that it does not exist, but because they hate Jews. And the remaining 1% has the intellectual ability of a glass of water.

Try writing out everything Scripter says as if you were explaining it to him. Then ask him if that’s what he meant. (No one in my experience gets mad at trying to be understood, admittedly not a definitive sample, Grin) Then once he agrees that you understand what he is saying, you can discuss what you see differently.

Indeed, that's a good way.

Illogical people get frustrated about logic, and logical people can get frustrated by illogic, illogical people can even be frustrated by someone else’s illogic, but a logical person will not get frustrated with another logical person.

The chance that a logical person would get frustrated with logic are smaller. However, I don't see a reason why it can be ruled out entirely. In informal logic, interpretations of facts, arguments, evidence, etc. are so important, so subject to subjectivism, that it is frustrating indeed to see some of the interpretations, even if they are technically 'logical'.

For example, I heard from a liberal friend that a former acquaitance of Bush said that they used to blow up frogs with fire-crackers. Now how might this be interpreted by two logical people who hold different political beliefs, if we assume for the sake of tha rgument that it's true? A liberal might see this as a continuum of pathology on the President's part. He might say: this is what he did in the past, and now he's blowing up Iraqis because of a war based on LIEES. Now, is this statement logical? The underlying assumptions probably aren't (and we all have underlying assumptions that aren't logical), but for someone who has those assumptions, it is probably a statement that is logical. Now how might I interpret this? I see it as a youthful indiscretion. I also know that he changed when he became a born-again Christian, and I believe he changed for the good. And I find it saddening and frustrating when ostensibly logical people use technically 'logical' arguments to show that he is a bad person. The problem is that I can't prove with certainty that Bush is a good person, because what 'good' is, and the evidence that is necessary to establish that a person is good, are all subjective, open to dispute and abuse. I hope that my clumsy example shows how important interpretation is, how important it is how much weight and significance you bestow upon certain events.

An example? I have pointed out flaws in your arguments and technique that would have gotten an illogical person very frustrated with me. Since we are both students of logic, you accepted my critique without rancor, and even thanked me for it. “I am a wise man and cannot be insulted, for I recognize truth and Bow to it and ignore lies.” – Attributed to Confucius So if there is only truth and untruth, all you have to do is be in harmony with truth, and ignore untruth and no one will be able to frustrate you.

Great quote. It reminds me of what I sometimes say to other people. When I deride them for some reason or another, they sometimes react like they're insulted. So I asked them: "Why are you so tense if it wasn't true? There is no need to get upset about another person's lies." Of course, the human psyche doesn't work that way. We do get angry and frustrated over lies. It's an intuitive reaction. But the key is that we need to realize that there is no need or reason to get frustrated and angry.

Yes, that was the conclusion. I now understand that you make illogical arguments just to frustrate them for an emotional thrill it gives you.

Of course, that is not included the cases in which I don't even realize that the argument I'm making is illogical.

Why not? (Grin)

It doesn't fit. We use formal logic to prove something conclusively. We can also use informal logic in that form, but even if you were to establish the premises, the conclusion still does not follow automatically. So, it's basically useless. You might just as well use informal logic as it was meant to be used. ;-)

I’m sorry, are you saying Logic can be improperly used? I believe that “Perfect Logic” if we ever attain it cannot be misused, for that would be... Illogical (grin)

We're using the word logic to mean both formal and informal logic. I was talking about informal logic, and that is certainly open to improper use.

So, Logic cannot be improperly used, while this informal, changing unpredictable logic can? Got it.

Well, you could try to use formal logic improperly, but that would be so blatant that even a fool in the King's court would notice (all politicians are lawyers, some lawyers are immoral, thus, some politicians are immoral). On the other hand, informal logic (anything that does not establish its conclusion with certainty) can be abused, and it often is abused IMO.

I would not be frustrated as I would not be affected. I learned long ago that your (in the non specific sense of the word) perception of reality cannot negatively impact my perception of reality (nor indeed reality itself) so I shouldn’t let the inaccuracies of your perception concern me more than as an opportunity to gain more perspectives.

So you're not even frustrated by people who are illogical. That's quite an achievement. Unfortunately, what is, is not necessarily equal to what should be, and I'm sometimes frustrated by people who are not logical. But I'm working on it.

“Perspectives, the currency of intellectuals” – Me

Nice one.

A logical person would not be frustrated as I am not frustrated by you but would learn of a new perspective as I am attempting to learn of this “Informal Logic”. Do you have any links to definitions?

Unfortunately, I don't, but whenever I stumble upon a book or site with information about informal logic, I'll PM them to you. It's really not something complex, or interesting. Formal logic is deductive reasoning, and informal logic is inductive reasoning.

Actually dividing information into groups by criteria is one of the bases of modern computing. I will often begin a debate by dividing the topic along line I want to divide it on. Once my opponent has allowed me to set the battle field “as it were” the battle will be easy, and the victory swift.

I really love the war-metaphor.

For example, when debating homosexuality’s relative “Logical” merits, I will commonly state that there are only three kinds of people: 1) Religious 2) Atheists 3) Those that are in denial of the other two positions. Most people will accept this as it is too hard to find a flaw in this division. I will follow with Most Atheists are Darwinists, which is also usually accepted. Then I start to eliminate positions. (Evil Grin) Religious people believe in a God, “God” created people with gender, gender is how we procreate, so “God” meant for us to be heterosexual in nature. (I do not care what “God” they want to quote as the logic is irrefutable, at this point most people see the trap and start trying to back pedal (grin) too late. I then point out that according to Darwin homosexuals are dead end genetically and we should just help evolution along by killing them off. Now, the only living Homosexuals are in denial, and are using their denial to confuse the issue with either religious and / or scientific arguments meant to engender support from those who do not agree with them, but agree with their arguments with the only conceivable purpose being the prolonging of their denial. At this point in the debate, the usual methods of defense for those supporting Homosexual behavior are not available to them, and often my points are conceded without further argument. I went through this way too fast, but I hope you get the idea.

LOL! You really know how to get people through a meat-grinder.

This example is so that I can show that by using logic superior to the logic of your opposition, you can reduce argument, actually get agreement by those who were in opposition to you and the opposition actually agrees to the premises that “got them into trouble” so, even illogical people can be soothed with logic. Logic is comforting, predictable, elegant, and admirable to most humans. An appeal to logic will never be belittled unless the person who is belittling it cannot understand the logic. When that happens you must simply reduce the intellectual level required for understanding until you can communicate.

If you can get them to agree to those premises without understanding that trouble is afoot, then it is a great way to pursue an argument. However, if you have already started discussing the topic, or they have, most people will just smell trouble when you ask them to agree to something.

What I meant was that you should elevate your logical arguments and your research and respond less, but with more accuracy. My brother does this quite well, we will be in a debate he on one side, not saying much, then out of the blue, he will nail his opponents to the floor with unassailable logic, and the debate is over.

The more arguments you use, the more chances you give an opponent to get away. I used to try to completely destroy an opponent's argument by refuting every single point with which I disagreed, and every objection I had. But that doesn't work. For example, let's suppose you use three arguments. The other person might attack ONE of those arguments and try to contest it, even though the arguments were not convergent (i.e., every one of those would be sufficient to provide support for your conclusion). But if you use your best argument, you're in a better position.

Scientific discoveries are made in the first person, and then proofs are constructed, validated and reviewed.

Yes. But scientists attempt to be objective, to not be personally involved in the matter. That might have been what I meant by 'from afar'. (Try imagining a psychologist who is just observing his victim with that infamous stare.)

While calculation and playing the odds are better than just waiting to be lucky, Sun Tzu would agree that you should remove luck as much as possible from your debate technique.

Ah! But I'm not trying to be lucky. (I'm sure this mathematical argument will appeal to you.) Imagine if you're debating someone, and you face the choice of whether to spend 5 minutes writing a sloppy response, or 15 minutes to write a good response. You've observed the person for some time, and don't think too highly of him. You estimate that the chance that there will be any difference between the two responses will be about 5%, because the person is absolutely clueless. The benefit would be a 66% reduction of the effort you need to put into your response, while the risk is only 5%. I'd go for it. Naturally, you need to be able to make generally correct assessments of people, otherwise, this method will not work.

>>The chance that a logical person would get frustrated with logic are smaller.
If a truly logical person was presented with Logic the exceeds his own, he will adopt the superior stance, not get frustrated. Frustration is not a logical conclusion to come to, ever.

>>A liberal might see this as a continuum of pathology on the President's part.
>>He might say: this is what he did in the past, and now he's blowing up Iraqis
>>because of a war based on LIEES. Now, is this statement logical?

No, it is not logical, it ignores the evidence that President Bush Believed, as we all did, that Iraq had Weapons and was ready to use them on the U.S. and her allies. The entire congress believed that this was a clear and present danger.

It is illogical to expect that all your information will be correct. It is also illogical to reject the analysis based on all available data. Just as it is Illogical for people with more information to demand that decisions made in the past be evaluated according to data that did not exist at the time the decision was made.

>>we all have underlying assumptions that aren't logical
Yes, that is one of the reasons discussions such as these are great, we can rid ourselves of illogical assumptions.

>>for someone who has those assumptions, it is probably a statement that is logical.
Logic based on unfounded assumptions is not logic, but reasoned assumptions. Logic is based on facts and known probabilities, assumptions are often emotion based.

>>I find it saddening and frustrating when ostensibly logical people use technically 'logical' arguments to show that he is a bad person.
I am not saddened; I see it as an opportunity to educate. I only hope I can come up with explanations that are simple enough to be understood by that person.

>>The problem is that I can't prove with certainty that Bush is a good person, because
>>what 'good' is, and the evidence that is necessary to establish that a person is good,
>>are all subjective, open to dispute and abuse.
While in this world absolutes are few and far between, I have found that most people (99.999%) see themselves in a positive light. Most rational people will agree with this statement, if you take that as a postulate in your argument it then falls to the liberal to prove that President Bush is the exception, not the rule. Once you are on that footing, the rest is easy. (Set the division, choose the terrain and time, and win the argument)

>>So I asked them: "Why are you so tense if it wasn't true?”
When dealing with another person, directly questioning their emotions does not bear a high probability of meeting with acceptance, indeed it bears a high probability of engendering feelings of anger and repulsion, resistance to any further instruction is almost certain to be the result of such an observation. Is it your purpose to win, or convert? If it is only your purpose to win, that is achieved easily by this means, if it is your purpose to convert (the more difficult and challenging task I might add) then this is a tactic you should eliminate from your arsenal of common use. In my experience if you present someone with a logical argument that is so solid that they cannot find a flaw, it bothers them, they mull it over, and eventually come to a conclusion that is compatible with the logic you gave them, thus they have changed their perspective and have come closer to your views.

>>We can also use informal logic in that form, but even if
>>you were to establish the premises, the conclusion still
>>does not follow automatically. So, it's basically useless.
My point precisely, informal Logic since it is inherently unpredictable is useless.

>>You might just as well use informal logic as it was meant to be used. ;-)

I am trying to build a good definition of “Informal logic” can you give me and example of something that can be proved by Informal Logic that cannot be proved with “Formal Logic”?

>> We're using the word logic to mean both formal and
>>informal logic. I was talking about informal logic, and
>>that is certainly open to improper use.

Since Logic is a term that by definition must predate Informal Logic and there are many books and documents that have been written it is only logical to mean formal logic when you say Logic and only say “Informal Logic” when you mean this newer brand of Logic, don’t you agree?

(See how logic solves this?)

>> LOL! You really know how to get people through a meat-grinder.
“I have worked hard to become so.” – Princess bride

(I love good quotes)

>> If you can get them to agree to those premises without understanding that trouble is
>>afoot, then it is a great way to pursue an argument. However, if you have already
>>started discussing the topic, or they have, most people will just smell trouble when you
>>ask them to agree to something.

As a Mormon who grew up in the buckle of the bible belt, I had many “Preacher’s sons” come after me with some supposed “Faith killer” argument. I found it was easy to say “If we are going to discuss religion, we need to be clear what we are talking about, what do you accept as scripture?” this was such a reasonable request that we then went on to set ground rules even after the discussion had begun. These hapless attackers of my faith soon found themselves trying to explain where Jesus’ body went after he was resurrected if God currently has “no body, parts or passions”. Or why Deuteronomy can say “Do not add to this book” and it’s ok to add other books, but when revelation says it (even though it was not written last) it means no more revelation ever. I never lost. In my experience, the tactic is sound even if the battle is already joined (Sun Tzu reference here) it is always best to have a plan. Thus I will state that it is never to late to ask for consensus on the scope of the discussion, to deny that scope makes even the most aggressive attacker feel like they are taking unfair advantage and they will look bad to any onlooker.

(Again with a Sun Tzu plagiarism) The best warrior can win a battle without landing a blow. (Sorry, I read Sun Tzu in Chinese, so my quotations may not agree with what you can find on the web, but that is the meaning of what I was thinking about.)

>> But if you use your best argument, you're in a better position.
That is a good tactic, some of the time, kind of like a frontal assault, in conversations, I will often let my opponent over extend themselves on some point of attack and then ask a question that kills their entire line of argument. When you do this, your opponent often cannot regroup and present a coherent defense against the attacks that I will now launch into this new breach of logical defense. (Think of it as drawing an army into a feigned weakness only to cut off and destroy the invading force thus weakening the enemy’s position.) This tactic is useful when an “Frontal assault” type of argument is difficult (like when you are one and there are three opponents .)

>> Yes. But scientists attempt to be objective, to not be personally involved in the matter.
>>That might have been what I meant by 'from afar'. (Try imagining a psychologist who
>>is just observing his victim with that infamous stare.)

I have yet to meet a scientist worth his salt who was “Objective” usually they are passionate about something the rest of us go “So?” about. (But I know my sample is inadequate for any statistical meaning)

As the next scientist you meet to explain this “In a truly statistical universe, everything possible must happen” and have fun listening to him explode (grin).

>> Naturally, you need to be able to make generally correct assessments of people, otherwise, this method will not work.

My point was that you might want to change your focus from “Winning lots of arguments” to “winning lots of converts”. You see arguments are easy to win, you can win an argument by just being more stubborn, more ruthless, or more skilled than your opponent, but to win a convert, you must convince them you are right. The best part about winning converts is that they stay won, and then you have friends. Have you ever “Won” an argument only to meet that person later and have the same argument?

“A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” – My Dad, remember?

I prefer to win converts, I can boast that I have converted 5 liberals to conservatism, I never counted those who have joined my church, I have also converted many to my way of thinking about logic. It is a very rewarding exercise. Think about it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.