Replies

>>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.