Replies

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.