[DelphiUser]

>>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.

[LtdGovt]

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.

Well... I'm sure President Bush thought that Iraq did have WMD's, so it is impossible for him to have lied. If you're going to use a pretext to invade a country (which the liberals say is what happened), then you're not going to use a pretext that will easily be falsified. He could have focused on the 'capability' to build WMDs if he wasn't sure of the WMDs themselves. But an opponent might argue the following: President Bush knew that there were no WMDs, but he used them as a pretext anyway, because he expected Iraq to become stable within a few months. Then again, every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam did have WMDs.

As for Iraq using them on us, I think that scenario would have been implausible. Saddam was not stupid, even though he had illusions of grandeur, he probably knew that using WMDs against the West would result in Iraq being nuked. Therefore, I doubt that he was planning to use WMDs against us. This is further supported by the fact that he did not use WMDs when we invaded Iraq in 2003, that would have been the perfect moment to use them, unless he wasn't stupid enough to do so.

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.

Absolutely. Maybe my example was not good. But I think it's possible for a logical person to become frustrated by something that is logical.

Yes, that is one of the reasons discussions such as these are great, we can rid ourselves of illogical assumptions.

Well... in my experience, some people just assume too many things. You have to destroy assumption after assumption, and after four hours (I'm exaggerating), the debate ends and you still haven't addressed the substance of the matter.

Logic based on unfounded assumptions is not logic, but reasoned assumptions. Logic is based on facts and known probabilities, assumptions are often emotion based.

But we are not machines. All of us have unfounded assumptions and associations. We don't evaluate everything on the basis of facts, and known probabilities. Our cognitive biases are part of the human condition. And I disagree with your assertion that assumptions are often emotion-based, certainly no more than opinions are.

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.

If you're lucky enough to meet a person with an open mind, that's great. But the average Bush-hater is quit resilient. He will reject any attempt at 'education'. And because you can't prove most of your points with certainty, someone who is not open-minded is not prone to persuasion.

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)

The fact that someone sees himself in a positive light, does not necessarily make him a good person. And I certainly don't think that 99.999% of all people are good. Making that argument is a huge, huge risk, because it is so transparent.

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?

It depends on the person. Debate isn't usually a good way of persuading people, because people are naturally defensive in a debate. It has to be veeeery subtle if you want to convince someone. (Or it might just be me, and the fact that I'm probably more confrontational in my approach than you are.)

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.

Interesting. I might have done this before, but I'm not sure because I never thought about it consciously. (By the way, in my experience, people find a flaw even though there is no flaw, grin.)

My point precisely, informal Logic since it is inherently unpredictable is useless.

Right now, we are using informal logic to debate about informal logic. The debate you wrote about homosexuality utilized informal logic. So in practice, you don't find it uselss, otherwies, you would not be using it.

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”?

Nothing can be proven by informal logic. Informal logic comes with probability, not with certainty. Example: Bush is a good man, he liberated 40 million people.

You might think of informal logic as "reaching conclusion based on observation: generalizing to produce a universal claim or principle from observed instances" and of formal logic as "the forming of conclusions by applying the rules of logic to a premise".

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?

Perhaps, but in that case, we shouldn't be using 'logic' and 'informal logic' interchangeably, which you were doing, I believe. But as far as the phenomena the words describe go, I believe informal logic is older than logic itself. Logic had to be invented (remember, All men are mortal), while informal logic is intuitive. So in fact, we should be using logic for 'informal logic'. (I just wanted to hit back at you, wink.)

“I have worked hard to become so [adept at putting people through a meat-grinder].” – Princess bride

Interesting. Can you teach me, or at least tell me how you learned it? After a gazillion posts, my inability to adequately explain the term 'informal logic' should make it very clear to you where my weakness in debates lays.

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.

You really knew what you were doing, if you were able to put people who were coming after you on the defensive about their own faith. I don't have that problem, I'm agnostic. But I don't argue with religious people over their religion. Answers are rarely given, it is mostly a waste of time. I'm very curious to know why Christians, for example, insist on the inerrancy of the Bible, and regard it as the Word of God, while at the same time disregarding huge portions of it. I don't mean to offend you (Mormons believe in the Bible too, not), I'm just curious, but I never got an answer. Thus, I concluded that it was pointless and only served to damage my nerves.

. I never lost.

I can't remember ever losing a single debate in real life (though I probably conveniently 'forgot' about them anyway).

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.

Good idea.

(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.)

CHINESE? You can read Chinese? And Sun Tzu is right, as always.

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 .)

It is always nice to let an opponent occupy a position that is weaker. However, usually, after he has failed to defend that position successfully, he will just retreat to a stronger position. He will lose some credibility with the audience, but he has not 'lost'.

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)

Well... they have to be objective. Because if other scientists can't reproduce their experiments, they are regarded as worthless. Quite different from a regular person.

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).

I don't get it either.

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?

I don't think so. But that might be due to fears of getting the response: "Liek I told you last time, this and that." Anyway, it depends on the person. Sometimes, I don't give a damn about whether people are convinced (people whom I don't know). Other times, I do care. Of course, I'll debate them in a different manner. I don't want to use hatchet style arguments against people I want to convince.

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.

I will, but at the moment, I judge it on a case-by-case basis.