[LtdGovt]

Phrase that in a logical argument and you have the basis of the 99.999% argument. 1. 99.999% argument. 2. Bush honestly believed the evidence that all the other countries believed as well as the congress of the USA (if a liberal argues this, ask how Bush figured out something Hillary did not and they will cede your point.) 3. Lying takes intent, so you cannot lie by stating something you believe to be true.

The argument that is made, is usually more sophisticated and not vulnerable to attacks on the basis of Hillary's position. They would claim that the White House and the CIA manipulated the evidence, and that Congress was deceived into supporting the war. Also, most hard-core lefties nowadays seem to dislike Hillary because of her initial support for staying the course. Point 3 is absolutely correct.

Of course, this wouldn't prove that foreign intelligence services were manipulated, and it can't. I still haven't had a liberal respond to that point, ever.

Presto, they will agree that President Bush did not lie.

Your opinion of human nature is way too optimistic, or you might have less insane liberals down there in the South.

How about this for a statement “So, bush was smart enough to fool the world into going to war with Iraq, but not smart enough to have WMD’s ready to plant when he won? “ These liberals now have to explain the inconsistency. (Remember, their assumption is going to be that he is barely smart enough to tie his shoes and not get them tied together.)

And on the assumption that Bush is the kind of person who would plant WMDs in order to prove that Iraq did have WMDs. Wasn't that what they were claiming before the war, in case any WMDs WOULD be found?

Anyway, a liberal might argue that it's impractical to plausibly plant WMDs. A liberal might argue that Bush did not fool the entire world into war, since most countries opposed the war. He might argue that Bush is just a puppet for the indisputably intelligent Cheney.

My point is not to say that what they might say is plausible. I don't think it is. But informal logic (any logic that can't establish its conclusion with certainty) rests on plausibility, and it does not work with mathematical precision, like formal logic does.

Saddam was stupid, the Commander and chief of the USA was a Texan, not Bill Clinton. He did not believe we would attack him without months more negotiation, then he expected it to be a bill Clinton style “fire all the missiles you have in your inventory”, then go home style war.

Great quote: "I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile to hit a empty tent and a camel in the ..."

Saddam was stupid, but he was not suicidal. That's why he didn't use WMDs on our troops (if he had them) after we invaded. He might have believed that he would be able to get away, but a nuclear strike would certainly kill him.

I have found that you can take assumptions out in groups if you can find the root of the assumption. As for addressing the substance of the matter, I will speak again in military terms; a good general only fights battles that advance his strategy, and ignores feints. For example, do you have a clear goal for our discussion? I do.

Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to have a clear goal. I tend to focus on the details while ignoring the big picture.

But we are not machines. Actually we are machines, bio mechanical machines, which not only replicate, repair, but house intelligence far greater than our physical structure should be able to hold. It is one of life’s mysteries that both religion and science try to answer.

Ah, but just how large or small is our physical structure?

I have an autistic son, looking back, I was mildly autistic myself.

You're kidding me?!! I'm slightly autistic (Asperger's). And I think that's why I'm unable to focus on the big picture.

It gives me a clarity of thought that I seldom see in others, in that I have had to study emotion, in order to understand others (I am not saying I have no emotion, only that It has a limited access to my conscious mind) The more I understood emotion in others, the more I understood myself. By studying mankind you learn about your self, by studying God you learn about yourself as well. Thus when we understand the relationship between man and God we will understand why he is interested in us.

Well... I guess he is interested in us because he created us, or the other way around. Other religions reflect the same thing. Remember Prometheus, who gave us fire and as a retaliation had his liver eaten out by an eagle every day? Why did he help Man? Because, some Greek sources say, he was the one who created us. I think the same applies to the Christian God. You aren't going to create humans if you are not interested in them, or in what they might do.

Opinions are also often emotion based. (Which is the better team… Who is the best basket ball player, what is your favorite book) often if you dig into these “Opinions” you will find that the person has an emotional connection (my dad used to take me to their games, I used to imagine I was…, My mom and I read… together.) There is nothing wrong with having opinions or assumptions, we should just know why.

'Your favorite book' is purely subjective, so it's no big surprise that it is not based on reason. But you're correct that emotions often influence our opinions, in that, opininos are no different from assumptions. Another example: President Bush - Iraq War. As more soldiers are killed, people will start getting negative feelings about President Bush, based purely on emotion. Purely subjective: "Was the war worth it? No. Who started the war? Bad man!"

The Chinese have a saying about knowledge; they break understanding into three categories: 1. Savage (a savage has no understanding of a tree, he will shelter under it, chop it and burn it for warmth but it is a mystical wonderful thing to him. 2. Scientist (A scientist will break a tree down into systems and parts, xylem, heartwood, root systems cytoplasts, etc) but the scientist will no longer enjoy the beauty of the tree because they are so caught up in the parts that make it up. 3. Learned Man: One, who encompasses the learning of both, while understanding the systems that make up a tree, can also enjoy its beauty and mystery. I hope that I have become a learned man when it comes to people.

So do I. The Chinese really do have some wisdom in them.

What's worse, not knowing something, or 'knowing' something that isn't true? I used to argue that an ignorant man and a learned man are often in agreement, while the somewhat-learned man disagrees. The ignorant man understands nothing, so he just accepts what . The somewhat-learned man understands some things, but thinks that he knows all, and therefore sometimes has foolish and counterintuitive opinions that are directly opposed to common sense. The learned man, on the other hand, knows what's relevant to the subject and comes to agree with the position of common sense. I used to have tons of examples, but I can't think of one right now, unfortunately.

All minds are open if we can just find the right phrase to open the lock they have placed there; words are keys, just find the right ones.

I assure you, some minds are closed. Imagine a holocaust denier. No matter how much evidence you give him, he will still come up with conspiracy theories to explain them away. Why? Because his underlying reason for denying the holocaust is not doubt about the holocaust, but his hatred of Jews.

He or she is a good person in his mind, and that is where you start, what is wrong with their perception of what is good? Why do they think they are a positive influence? What can they be taught to bring them one step closer to truth?

I really can't believe that you're arguing this. Your argument is not sound. We don't reason based on the point of view of our victim, we do that as an independent observer. Otherwise, you might actually argue that because 70% of people think that they're better drivers than average, they really are unless we can prove that it isn't so. In other words, the average man is a better driver than the average man.

Ah, but they think they are, and that is what matters.

No, because we're not trying to establish that person A thinks he's a good man, but whether he IS a good man. His self-image has absolutely nothing to do with reality, since most evil people think that they are good too (as evidenced by the 99.999% figure we both agree on).

No one will insist that most people are evil in their own sight (unless rarity of rarities you are talking with someone who is evil in their own sight) because people tend to project when talking about others in a generic sense. This projection will cause them to want everyone to see themselves as good because they see them selves as good. To say the reverse is to want the reverse, see?

Perhaps. But I don't see the relevance to the argument. Most people will agree that most people see themselves as good, but that's a poor argument to use for arguing that people are good unless the opposite can be shown to be true.

That is entirely the point of debate, and if you can draw out your opponent by making truly thought provoking statements, you can communicate with even the most recaltrant verbal hermit.

It depends on what kind of debate it is. Sometimes, it is a contest. I don't see presidential candidates convincing each other in a debate. Other times, it is used for persuasion, and you're right about thsoe caes.

Oh, I can be confrontational when I want to be.. My wife had this Feminazi co worker that was always harassing the men, they could not fight back because she would cry harassment if they defended themselves. I held my tongue at my wife’s request until we were at a department party. She saw me helping my wife with her coat, after holding the door for her. She went off on a tirade about what a male chauvinist pig I was. My wife turned to me and winked and said “Have fun dear” I turned to her and said “My wife likes me that way and I care far more about her opinion than I do about yours.” She tried to talk about the reasons it was not “Good” to be a chauvinist, but couldn’t get past that I didn’t care what she thought. I opined that “It must be really hard for you to know that God is a man and really doesn’t care that you do not like how he arranged the natural order here on earth.” She burst into tears and tried to play the victim, but much to her shock all the men from her department started clapping. She avoided me from then on (which was fine with me.) So you see, I can be blunt when it serves my purpose.

You did the right thing, women who harrass men are very annoying. Of course, you weren't trying to persuade her, you were trying to defeat her, because she was coming after you.

Actually, it used formal Logic, or real logic, the original logic? OK, Logic.

Did it establish your conclusion indisputably? It didn't. In fact, I have my doubts about killing for the sake of evolution. Therefore, it is necessarily informal logic. Formal logic is deductive, mathematical and works regardless of the context. All these criteria did not apply to what you said.

But there's nothing wrong with informal logic (you need to get rid of the idea that it is somehow worse than formal logic). If we allow only formal logic, a political debate is impossible.

I am using Logic, the old style.

You're using informal logic, no matter what you think you're using. Your posts have been 100% inductive, not deductive. Formal logic is something a computer program could resolve. All lawyers are politicians, all politicians are corrupt, are some lawyers corrupt? A computer would be able to say yes. However, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it cannot prove that they have been destroyed, does Iraq have WMDs? A computer could not understand this statement (because it's not mathematical, it's judgemental), only humans can. And the answer does not follow with certainty.

Your informal logic cannot prove anything because it assumes relationships which are not established in fact as part of the rationale. For example in your statement, the “freeing of 40 million”, was that on purpose? Or did he just have a duel and win?

Perhaps. You can use informal logic to argue any of those two points, one more plausibly than the other. But ask yourself: do the arguments you have used establish their conclusions with absolute certainty? No, they don't. That's because you are using informal logic.

Observation is part of Normal logic. Normal logic can also have generalization, though you usually need to have several instances to have a generalization stick.

Now you're introducing your own logical terms to the debate? What is 'normal logic'? Why not stick to the terms 'formal logic' (with absolute and indisputable certainty, adds no new information), 'informal logic' (using logic, but uncertain), and 'illogic' (contrary to logic).

This cannot be, or we would refer to inductive reasoning as logic deductive logic would have the additional words to define it in terms of the existing version of Logic.

The words are irrelevant to the question of which of the two came (not the words, but the forms themselves) first. There is no way we can know for sure, but I assume informal logic came first, because formal logic isn't all that useful in daily life (especially not for a cave-dweller).

Logic is, kind of like wet is, you may have to invent a word for it, but it just is. (back at you with spin)

Ah! That may be relevant to the natural world, but for us humans, the question is whether formal or informal logic was used first by humans. And the ancients did not agree over whether logic exists outside the human perception, so it's perfectly reasonable, from their perspective, to put formal logic on an equal footing with informal logic.

I have always had a different way of looking at things. It gives me an edge in debates, I can have more than one perspective, I can have up to eight concurrent thoughts running in my head at once although to do so for more than a few hours gives me a headache. (Part of that autistic tendency I was talking about.) Normal brains kill off any neural nets that do not join the largest one (“There can be only one” – Highlander, for your brain) Autistic people never kill a brain cell voluntarily, so I have multiple neural nets in my brain.

Hey, I got the autism, but not the eight concurrent thoughts. Any way I can sue God for this?

I spent two years in Taiwan as a missionary, learned 5 dialects, graduated from a Buddhist monastery, memorized the basic 3K characters that give you the equivalent to a two year degree from a college and I specialized in computer symbols and added those to my 3K. It has been over 20years, and I can’t read much without a dictionary near by, but I like to keep my hand in (I am still conversational though) It surprises a lot of people for a round eyes like me to respond to questions about me (grin) you should see their faces!

I never knew. Why did you graduate from a Buddhist monastery if you were there to convert people? Did you just think that it was interesting?

I have found that following in Jesus’ footsteps is always a good way to go. He was a master teacher, he changed the perspectives of heaven only knows how many people, he taught with stories. Try a story that illustrates both types of Logic and highlites the differences.

I can't tell a story, I'm not that creative.

So let’s use Adam and Eve and Satan in the Garden of Eden (Even non Christians tend to know this story) Satan trying to tempt Adam went to him and asked him to try the forbidden fruit. Adam said “no.” Then Adam told Satan he would not disobey God the Father. This is logic or direct reasoning Action and reaction, straight lines of thought. Then Satan went to eve and asked her to eat of the fruit, he told her it was delicious, and good. Eve asked Satan who he was. Satan answered that he was her brother, and he wanted her to try the forbidden fruit. Here we have Satan using Normal Sight logic, and Eve using curved, non linear logic which as I read Genesis kind of put Satan off his guard. So Logic is Straight lines and “Informal Logic” is curved lines. But you can use both to come to the same conclusions.

I disagree. I don't think a statement like 'I won't disobey my Father' is logic at all, it is just a statement of intent. Now, he *might* use logic to explain the statement, like: 'I won't disobey my Father, because I have Him to thank for everything.' That would be informal logic. Only with reasoned factual statements with which Satan would agree are TRUE, are 'formal logic' (not that Satan playing dumb would elevate informal logic to te status of formal logic). God created humans, I am a human, God created me (for Adam, this is something even Satan cannot dispute).

Only if you let him; if you let him expend enough capital/intellect/reputation, and even start to plan a strategy around holding that ground, you destroy his strategy and his defense is weaker because of this lost time and confusion at losing ground he though he controlled.

I have to learn how to finish people off. Oftentimes, I can't to anything about such a strategic retraet.

Scientists act like the universe can be described with statistics; however statistics describe a universe where everything happens, just the probability is being calculated. Therefore we do not live in a truly statistical universe (because not everything happens here), statistics are then an improper tool to describe our universe, but it’s such a useful tool we use it anyway.

If we're talkinga bout recurring events that are replicable, then statistics are quite proper. How big is the chance that the sun will come up in the morning? 100%. That tossing a coin will give me a head? 50%. But just asserting statistics is not proper. Someone might say, there is a 99% chance that Bush will be re-elected in 2008, despite the constitutional prohibition. Now that cannot be proven wrong. If Bush is not elected in 2008, he will argue that the 1% scenario played out.

I'm not sure whether I got it (in fact, quite sure that I didn't get it). You won't be surprised to know that when it comes to mathematics and physics IQ, I'm moving into the retarded zone.

Logic is superior to illogic; Straight lines are easier to explain to another person than curved lines. By using arguments that are direct, yet thought provoking you can change someone’s mind who thought it had been made up. Questions are often more powerful than statements. Most of all, strategy in conversation keeping your goal in mind will give your conversation a sharp quality that is attractive to others, while being difficult to refute. Ronal Reagan exemplified this kind of tactic when giving a press conference he opened with “Before I refuse to answer your questions, I have a statement.” His humor, directness and charisma made those in the press chuckle, but they let him get away with this tactic. I miss having a president like him.

Me too. Your fellow Mormon Romney might be someone like Reagan, he's quite articulate and eloquent. I'm not sure how you ended up with describing informal logic as 'curved lines'. Anything that does not conclusively prove its point beyond despute, would be a 'curved line'.

[DelphiUser]

>>The argument that is made, is usually more sophisticated and not vulnerable to attacks
>>on the basis of Hillary's position.
IMHO All democratic positions are vulnerable to attacks on the basis of Hillary’s position (there I used an absolute)

>>They would claim that the White House and the CIA manipulated the evidence, and that Congress was deceived into supporting the war.
Congress saw the raw data and what, president bush manipulated the intel for the brits, France, Israel and Germany? Do you (asking the Dhimmi crat) really think he’s that smart? (remember, they think he’s dumb, so they will have to back track here)

>>Also, most hard-core lefties nowadays seem to dislike Hillary because of her initial
>>support for staying the course.
It does not matter if they like her now, they said she was “the smartest woman on earth”, and that bush was “dumb” Unless they want to admit that they were wrong (and they won’t) then they have to continue to support their projected stereotypes.

>>Point 3 is absolutely correct.
Thank you.

>>Of course, this wouldn't prove that foreign intelligence services were manipulated, and
>>it can't. I still haven't had a liberal respond to that point, ever.
Bingo! See, this can be won with “Logic” in the classical sense.

>>Your opinion of human nature is way too optimistic, or you might have less insane liberals down there in the South.
I live in Utah now, but do business all over (started my own company doing data conversions) I do not try to get into political debates while on business, but have had lots of opportunity to talk to people on planes and such, when faced with logic, most Dhimmi crats will retreat, admit you are right, and wait for you to go away to resume their opinion (they know they are wrong and don’t care.)

>>on the assumption that Bush is the kind of person who would plant WMDs in order to
>>prove that Iraq did have WMDs. Wasn't that what they were claiming before the war,
>>in case any WMDs WOULD be found?

Remember the projection I was talking about? Anyway, so, why didn’t he? Because he believed they would find some = He was not lying.

>>Anyway, a liberal might argue that it's impractical to plausibly plant WMDs.
Bull, plant tons of Talc, switch a sample for anthrax at the lab, sanitize the area publicly, done!

>>A liberal might argue that Bush did not fool the entire world into war, since most
>>countries opposed the war.
Actually we had more allies for the second war with araq than we did for the first.

He might argue that Bush is just a puppet for the indisputably intelligent Cheney.
So why didn’t Cheney plant WMD’s? (This flies no better than with bush as mastermind, use all the same arguments Hillary, et all)

>>My point is not to say that what they might say is plausible. I don't think it is. But
>>informal logic (any logic that can't establish its conclusion with certainty) rests on
>>plausibility, and it does not work with mathematical precision, like formal logic does.
Many Science fiction stories are “plausible” that does not make them logical, or even believable. (Though science fiction is enjoyable.)

My logic here establishes it’s conclusion with all the certainty the current information allows, remember my statements made in post 200?

“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.”

>>He might have believed that he would be able to get away, but a nuclear strike would certainly kill him.
We would not have nuked him, darn it, we were to hamstrung by the rest of the world.

>>Unfortunately, it's difficult for me to have a clear goal. I tend to focus on the details while ignoring the big picture.
Too bad, I assign a thread to both and “focus on them both.

>>Ah, but just how large or small is our physical structure?
Well, I for example and 5’11” tall Grin) but the point is how big were the first computers? I’d be willing to bet that the computer you are using (if it’s not a laptop) has a physical displacement larger than your head. Yet your head has more computing power, storage, and redundancy than the computer. Science and religion both try to answer the questions “How did that happen?”.

>>You're kidding me?!! I'm slightly autistic (Asperger's). And I think that's why I'm unable to focus on the big picture.
The big picture is merely perspective, I have found that how you picture your mind is how it works (try picturing yourself backing away from your problems to get a bigger picture)

>>Well... I guess he is interested in us because he created us, or the other way around.
Grin, yep one of those polar opposites thingies

>>Remember Prometheus, who gave us fire and as a retaliation had his liver eaten out by
>>an eagle every day? Why did he help Man? Because, some Greek sources say, he was
>>the one who created us. I think the same applies to the Christian God. You aren't going
>>to create humans if you are not interested in them, or in what they might do.
I purposely did not try to promote one brand of religion, they all are trying to answer the same questions, the Greek mythology, Catholics Mormons Baptists, etc

>>What's worse, not knowing something, or 'knowing' something that isn't true?
>>I used to argue that an ignorant man and a learned man are often in agreement, while
>>the somewhat-learned man disagrees.
“Elect a teenager president, while they still know everything.” – Old Joke

I divide people into three categories:
1. The Ignorant (one who has not yet had the opportunity to learn, or has not availed them selves of an opportunity that was presented, willful ignorance is still ignorance)
2. The Stupid (you just can’t teach some people, and they will never learn)
3. The learned (have had education on the topic at hand and have an opinion based on study. A learned individual will always be seeking more education on every subject.)
People can move from one category to another as the topics being discussed change. A well rounded individual will know something on just about every subject.

All minds are open if we can just find the right phrase to open the lock they have placed there; words are keys, just find the right ones.

>>I assure you, some minds are closed. Imagine a holocaust denier.
>>No matter how much evidence you give him, he will still come up with conspiracy
>>theories to explain them away. Why? Because his underlying reason for denying the
>>holocaust is not doubt about the holocaust, but his hatred of Jews.
Statement: “This ship is unsinkable!”
Question “Why do you say that”
Answer “It is still floating.”
So the mind is impenetrable because ti has no been penetrated yet? (grin) Has anyone with a closed mind on this ever had their mind changed? If so, how did that happen? Has it happened more than once? Can it be repeated? What techniques were used to defeat the “Closed mind syndrome” successfully?

IF you really wanted to you could find a way.

He or she is a good person in his mind, and that is where you start, what is wrong with their perception of what is good? Why do they think they are a positive influence? What can they be taught to bring them one step closer to truth?

>>I really can't believe that you're arguing this. Your argument is not sound. We don't
>>reason based on the point of view of our victim, we do that as an independent
>>observer. Otherwise, you might actually argue that because 70% of people think that
>>they're better drivers than average, they really are unless we can prove that it isn't so.
>>In other words, the average man is a better driver than the average man.

Goal, create better drivers.
Tool: people think that they are good drivers.
Method: Couch your teaching in terms of giving people ways to improve therit already good driving skills, appeal to their vanity about their good driving skills (even if they are not) and convince them to change their driving habits to actually improve their driving competency.

What you are confusing here is Logic and Tactics. Logic is how you formulate your Tactics. The tactics, since you are working with a person who might not be logical, do not have to be logical in and of themselves. Starting with someone’s belief about themselves to affect the desired change is a time tested tactic, and belongs in any good debaters’ arsenal of argument.

>>No, because we're not trying to establish that person A thinks he's a good man, but
>>whether he IS a good man. His self-image has absolutely nothing to do with reality,
>>since most evil people think that they are good too (as evidenced by the 99.999%
>>figure we both agree on).
IF almost everyone thinks they are a good person, then all we have to do is convince them that the behavior we want from them is a good thing for them to do. Evil uses this exact method to get people to do bad things for “Good “ reasons. If Good abandons this tool, we are severely hampered. As for establishing that someone is good, if the person agrees that most people are good, then the must admit that Whoever we are talking about sees themselves in a good light (in all probability) so they must now explain why that person is wrong in their evaluation of what is good (so why is president bush mistaken that he is a good person) This is an extremely difficult argument for them to win as they do not know all the information at the President’s disposal. Having arrived at this point in the discussion, they will concede that the President may indeed be a good man, just in a very difficult position (they may even think he is out of his depth, but the “Bad Man” argument will be won.) This is tactics BTW.

>>Perhaps. But I don't see the relevance to the argument. Most people will agree that
>>most people see themselves as good, but that's a poor argument to use for arguing that
>>people are good unless the opposite can be shown to be true.
It is an excellent argument, you yourself said that good and Bad are relative.

>>It depends on what kind of debate it is. Sometimes, it is a contest. I don't see
>>presidential candidates convincing each other in a debate. Other times, it is used for
>>persuasion, and you're right about thsoe caes.
A presidential debate is not about convincing the other candidate, it is about convincing potential voters. It is a very difficult position, because the person you are actually responding to (the other candidate) is not the person you want to influence. That is why so many of those debates seem to be each side saying their “Talking points” in response to any question without regard to relevance.

>>>>Oh, I can be confrontational when I want to be(snip)

>>You did the right thing, women who harrass men are very annoying. Of course, you
>>weren't trying to persuade her, you were trying to defeat her, because she was coming
>>after you.
Precisely, I had a goal, I had my plans laid, I set the terms of the engagement and I executed my plan in the way I calculated to have the most probable outcome of success.

Actually, it used formal Logic, or real logic, the original logic? OK, Logic.

Did it establish your conclusion indisputably?
Yes, it did, I set the terrain (the three types).
I set the predilliction for Darwanisem
(postulates that are difficult to refute, once agreed upon are facts for the course of the discussion)
And I pointed out that the only remaining logical position was one of Denial. I then pointed out that the only arguments there were disingenuous arguments designed to delay inevitable defeat. So logically if defeat is indeed inevitable, the fight is over, if you are dealing with a logical person anyway, which leaves anyone left fighting branding themselves as illogical, emotional, and defecto a fanatic.

>>It didn't. In fact, I have my doubts about killing for the sake of evolution.
Killing them off was indeed tongue in cheek, but they cease to be an evolutionary force. Consider the logic of a creature that does not replicate evolving “Naturally” from one that dos by “Survival of the Fittest” LOL!

>>Formal logic is deductive, mathematical and works regardless of the context. All these
>>criteria did not apply to what you said.
I believe that do, break it by a logical means if you can.

>>But there's nothing wrong with informal logic (you need to get rid of the idea that it is
>>somehow worse than formal logic). If we allow only formal logic, a political debate is
>>impossible.
I don’t think so, infact I have had many political debates by basing my poition entirely in Logic, not “Informal Logic”

I am using Logic, the old style.

>>You're using informal logic, no matter what you think you're using.
Grin

>>Your posts have been 100% inductive, not deductive.
Really? Show one of my arguments that is not based in fact, or accepted postulates.

>>Formal logic is something a computer program could resolve.
As a programmer, I could code all the arguments I have made here.

>>However, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it cannot prove that they have been
>>destroyed, does Iraq have WMDs? A computer could not understand this statement
1. Iraq had them.
2. Iraq hid them
3. Iraq refuses to show they have gotten rid of them (change cannot be proved)
Therefore Iraq still has WMDs (assuming a steady state environment, which most computers assume I.E. unless you change a value it stays the same)

>>(because it's not mathematical, it's judgemental), only humans can. And the answer
>>does not follow with certainty.
When information is withheld, judgment is impaired.

We must then look at the logical reasons why information would be withheld and you are admittedly in a sub optimal analysis position. Being in a sub optimal position only means that your result produces a probability with more decimal places (remember the statistical universe question?) since we do not live in a statistical universe, we round the statistic up for .49+ and down for .50- thus reducing a probability to a one or zero (true or false) answer. This equation would result in a true for Iraq having weapons of Mass destruction. The accuracy of that equation is that we have found TONS of WMD’s in Iraq, just scattered and hidden, which I could also have predicted with a mathematical formula.

>>Perhaps. You can use informal logic to argue any of those two points, one more
>>plausibly than the other. But ask yourself: do the arguments you have used establish
>>their conclusions with absolute certainty? No, they don't. That's because you are using
>>informal logic.
So to you the philosophical question of whether or not you exist for you is an exercise in Informal Logic? I have accepted certain truths to be self evident. I no longer participate in discussion of whether or not I exist. (Since the outcome of the discussion will not actually affect me.) I also refuse to be dragged into discussions of whether or not absolute truth exists. (I respond “Absolutely!” Grin)

I exist.
Truth exists
I seek to understand ultimate truth.
I speak from the best facts at my disposal, even while admitting that I do not have all the facts. I accept new facts as they are available, and supportable. Thus I am a rational man.

>>Now you're introducing your own logical terms to the debate? What is 'normal logic'? Why not stick to the terms 'formal logic' (with absolute and indisputable certainty, adds no new information), 'informal logic' (using logic, but uncertain), and 'illogic' (contrary to logic).
Why not stick to Logic for “Formal Logic” and “Informal Logic” for this new variety, it will save on all the effort of correcting all the books written when “Formal Logic” was all the “Logic” there was.

>>This cannot be, or we would refer to inductive reasoning as logic deductive logic
>>would have the additional words to define it in terms of the existing version of Logic.

>>The words are irrelevant to the question of which of the two came (not the words, but the forms themselves) first.
This is incorrect reasoning, you cannot create a word for a concept that does not yet exist, thus since a word was created first, the concept was created first.

>>There is no way we can know for sure, but I assume informal logic came first, because
>>formal logic isn't all that useful in daily life (especially not for a cave-dweller).
I could make a joke about Assumptions (grin) but I won’t Etymology, or the study of the history of words can indeed tell us whaere words cae from and e=when they and the concepts that came with them were created.

For example, in Chinese there is no word for “Clash”. You cannot say in Chinese that shirt and those pants clash. You can say it looks ugly together, but that is as close as you can get. (This explains how Chinese people just off of the plane dress, then after they have been here a year or so, they suddenly get it and dress much better) So once their English gets to the point the understand the English word clash, they can now use it, until then because they have no word, they have no concept.

>>>>Logic is, kind of like wet is, you may have to invent a word for it, but it just is. (back
>>>>at you with spin)

>>Ah! That may be relevant to the natural world, but for us humans, the question is
>>whether formal or informal logic was used first by humans. And the ancients did not
>>agree over whether logic exists outside the human perception, so it's perfectly
>>reasonable, from their perspective, to put formal logic on an equal footing with
>>informal logic.
Etymology (which is a science) would say otherwise.

>>Hey, I got the autism, but not the eight concurrent thoughts.
>>Any way I can sue God for this?
You’ll have to take it to the Highes court, and then he would just have to recuse himself so the case would be thrown out, so nope, can’t sue. Then again, I am not a lawyer; I do not even play one on T.V. so you should ask your council for sound legal advice.

>>I never knew. Why did you graduate from a Buddhist monastery if you were there to
>>convert people? Did you just think that it was interesting?
I was teaching the son of the translator for the living Buddha, and his father wanted one of us to take his class in order to give permission to be baptized, besides, it was fascinating. (grin with a win, win, win)

>>I can't tell a story, I'm not that creative.
Story telling is a skill that can be acquired, I recommend it, along with speed reading.

>>I disagree. I don't think a statement like 'I won't disobey my Father' is logic at all, it is
>>just a statement of intent.

I was trying to show the difference in responses, straight lines, curved lines …

>>I have to learn how to finish people off. Oftentimes, I can't to anything about such a strategic retraet.
When your opponent retreats, make then expend capital defending their retreat, then according to your strategy, either pursue the retreating argument, or sow dissention by attacking elsewhere to cause confusion in his coherent arguments, if the latter, then return to the retreating front of defense to create an argument on two fronts, few debaters can keep up with logical arguments on two fronts, and they often concede ideological ground that they should not.

>>If we're talkinga bout recurring events that are replicable, then statistics are quite
>>proper. How big is the chance that the sun will come up in the morning? 100%.
Not true since one day/ night? The sun will inevitably not rise as it will have gone out, gone novae, etc.

>>That tossing a coin will give me a head? 50%. But just asserting statistics is not proper.
Actually since a penny is not symmetrical, it’s not a 50% probability, I calculated it once, but I can’t remember the numbers.

>>Someone might say, there is a 99% chance that Bush will be re-elected in 2008,
>>despite the constitutional prohibition. Now that cannot be proven wrong.
Actually, the formula would be flawed because it is not taking into account the constraint posed by the constitution.

>>If Bush is not elected in 2008, he will argue that the 1% scenario played out.
Thus, the problem with statistics, they do not represent the real world, even though we try to make it do so. (Once Bush is not reelected is it not now a 100% probability?)

>>I'm not sure whether I got it (in fact, quite sure that I didn't get it). You won't be
>>surprised to know that when it comes to mathematics and physics IQ, I'm moving
>>into the retarded zone.
Dang, this is a fun concept to play with Sigh!

>>Your fellow Mormon Romney might be someone like Reagan, he's quite articulate and eloquent.
I wish he was a true conservative… I wish I had the facts to know for sure.

>>I'm not sure how you ended up with describing informal logic as 'curved lines'.
>>Anything that does not conclusively prove its point beyond despute, would be
>>a 'curved line'.
Since I was telling the story, I used logic as streaigth lines, and Informal Logic as curved because that is how it seemed to me. The power to draw such similies is part of being the story teller.

Thanks, this has been fun so far.