Replies

>>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.

IMHO All democratic positions are vulnerable to attacks on the basis of Hillary’s position (there I used an absolute)

A principled Democratic Congressman would be far less vulnerable, since he voted against the war from the very beginning, even when it was very powerful. Fortunately, shrewd policitians who were for the war when it was popular and against the war when it was unpopular, are not immune to criticism.

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)

I assume France, Britain and Israel had their own intelligence. But I really don't know how they think about this, since it is a near-impossibility to get an answer out of them. They're very good at changing the subject.

Bingo! See, this can be won with “Logic” in the classical sense.

Sure you can be win with induction (as this was inductive/informal reasoning). I did not dispute that. What I did say is that you can't prove oyur point with certainty.

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.)

You're right about that. But is a defeat in an argument really evidence for the assertion that it is illogicl? Imagine a weak debater who is pro-Israel and a strong debater who is pro-terrorist. The pro-Israel debater will get outmaneuvered and defeated, but in his heart, he will still know that Israel is right. Similarly, most of my political positions come from a combination of what I think and feel about the issue.

Regarding Bush-haters, they are quite resilient and immune to fact. That's why I don't set out to persuade them anymore, because it is impossible. I set out to defeat them.

Bull, plant tons of Talc, switch a sample for anthrax at the lab, sanitize the area publicly, done!

I really believe someone in the government would leak that fact to the NYT, and it would be an even greater embarrassment for the Bush administration. And the Democrats were ready to attack anything (even legitimate) weapons as 'planted'.

Actually we had more allies for the second war with araq than we did for the first.

You mean that more countries provided military support? Because for the first Gulf War, Western political support was near-unanimous and even the Soviet Union supported us.

Many Science fiction stories are “plausible” that does not make them logical, or even believable. (Though science fiction is enjoyable.)

But regular fiction is plausible and it would be logical to believe it, except for the fact that we know that it is fiction.

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.”

Absolutely. But the interpretation of that information ia a human's job, not a machine's. While a computer program can come up with answers when it comes to formal logic (because it's mathematical), it can't do so for informal logic.

We would not have nuked him, darn it, we were to hamstrung by the rest of the world.

I think we would have nuked them, or at least, Saddam thought that we would, and that is sufficient to explain his actions. If you don't agree, why didn't he use his WMDs? Why would we even invade a country that would use WMDs against us if attacked? (If not [use WMDs when attacked], why not?)

Too bad, I assign a thread to both and “focus on them both.

Ah! You're a computer program yourself, and you're using your programmer's FR-account. (Grin. Of course, this is an impossibility, because you understand informal logic.)

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?”.

Power, yeah. Understanding, yeah. Computers are very stupid. But storage? I wish I could load 400 GB of Ebooks in my mind.

Grin, yep one of those polar opposites thingies

LOL! What I actually meant was with that, was that he might have created us because He thought we would be interesting to Him.

“Elect a teenager president, while they still know everything.” – Old Joke

Isn't that the truth?

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.

There is some overlap between the groups. Some people are learned but stupid. They don't know how to use what they have learned in a good manner. Oftentimes, they will reach conclusions that are even worse than the ones reached by those who are not learned and stupid. Most people in the world would fit in the second group, BTW.

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.

Your opinion of mankind is way too optimistic, I think.

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.

You're correct. But you've got to have the patience to deal with such types. I don't think I have it. And I think that any effect on the person will be long-term, the person will realize that his views are irrational, but will not readily admit it. It takes some time.

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.

Absolutely, I am not disputing that this is a sound tactit to chance behavior. However, I do not think that it is a sound way of assessing whether people are good drivers. People's self-report tends to be biased in their own favor.

. 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)

I don't see why any person's view of himself has any relevance to the debate about whether the person is good. The mere fact that a person sees himself as good, does not mean that it should be the starting point for a debate about whether he is really good. You're very good at getting the starting positions in a way that is favorable to your own position, but this doesn't seem logical to me (though it is a terrific debating technique).

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.

However, you must also realize that this very same tacit can be used against you.

It is an excellent argument, you yourself said that good and Bad are relative.

It's a poor argument, even though it might work. Fallacies might work in some cases, but that doesn't mean they're not fallacies.

As for good and bad being relative, I don't believe I've said that just like that. Different persons may have differing opinions, but there is some truth out there.

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.

It is. But my entire point was that in many cases, winning is the goal, and not persuasion. In other cases, persuasion may be the goal. At least, this is how it is for me.

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.

It didn't. A lot can be said to contest your arguments. The fact that this particular woman was too stupid/clueless to do so, does not mean that you used formal logic and that your conclusion was established with certainty.

1. She might not believe in a God.
2. She might not believe that God, even if He exists, has created a particular'natural order'.
3. She might argue about the exact nature of the 'natural order'.

The fact that she was technically able to contest your argument, means that you were not using formal logic. Think about it. Who can contest the following? 1. All men are moral. 2. DelphiUser is a man. 3. DelphiUser is mortal. That's deductive/syllogism/formal logic, and it establishes its conclusion with certainty.

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.

You did not 'point out' that the only remaining Logic was Denial (false dilemma), nor that all arguments were disingenuous, or that they were designed to delay inevitable defeat, you merely asserted that. And assertion is not evidence, you need to provide evidence for why that is the case. As a lot can be said about your argument, you did not establish your conclusions with certainty and thus were not using formal logic, regardless of whether or not the other participants were defeated by you.

I believe that do, break it by a logical means if you can.

What was the question exactly that was in dispute? As you have stated, the point being argued is very important to any debate.

Anyhow, even if it cannot be broken by logical means (which I think it can), the mere fact that it can be tarnished by logical means, means that you have not established your conclusion with certainty. A syllogism cannot be disputed, if the evidence is true, the conclusion must be true. That is not the case in your argument.

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.

With due respect, but whatever you think you are using is irrelevant. Either your definition of logic will include something of my definitions of both formal & informal logic, or you are flat out wrong about the certainty with which your conclusions are established. (And this is not a false dilemma.)

Of course, it is my fault that I haven't cleraly explained informal logic. But explanation has never been my strongest point.

Really? Show one of my arguments that is not based in fact, or accepted postulates.

All your arguments are based on fact, but they need to be based on form (formal logic) te be deductive, and thus establish their conclusions with certainty. Those facts are open to interpretation, that is NOT the case with formal logic/deduction.

As a programmer, I could code all the arguments I have made here.

I assure you, you cannot code a program that will come up with any conclusion in the debates we have used, if you feed it the evidence. There are few certainties in life, but this is one of them. Unless you have secretly invented some sophisticated form of AI, of course.

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)

Now, can you come up with a program that will come up with the conclusion based on the first three pieces of evidence? And also be able to make other conclusions? Of course, that's impossible. However, I can make a program that will handle 100% of all formal logic cases (with BASIC). Everything else is informal logic.

When information is withheld, judgment is impaired.

Not only that, but logical people can disagree on how to interpret the information. Put 100 logical people in a room, provide them with some evidence about some subject, and I guarantee you that there will be no unanimous conclusion. But give them the two premises of a formal argument, and they will agree on the conclusion, 100% of them.

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.

How do you make a formula that will work in most cases? Of course, that is impossible. Informal logic is a human endeavor, since it requires human judgement. You can integate that judgement into a formula for one single case, but since you did that, you might just as well made a conclusion for yourself.

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 have accepted some truths as self-evident too. I do exist, and discussion about that is tiresome indeed. Absolute truth exists, but it's limited. People who think they've found the truth and cling to it as if it was God's own word, are particularly annoying. But other philosophical and political questions are without doubt exercises in informal logic. I could have made this more clear if we disagreed on most political issues, since in that case, I could show you that neither one of us could establish his conclusions with absolute certainty, and that necessarily means that it is informal logic.

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.

We all think we are. But truth be told, there are limits to our rationality. Some of us are more rational than others, but no man is wholly rational.

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.

Because you keep using the word 'logic' to mean 'informal logic'! Or maybe you think that you have established your conclusions with certainty, while you have not done so. No offense BTW.

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.

Gladly. Logic comes from the Greek word logos, which means word or reasoning. And reasoning is, without doubt, informal logic.

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.

Indeed. But as you have said, you can get wet even if you don't have a word for it. And you can use formal logic without having a word for it. I assume that the word was invented after someone discovered that such a thing existed, which necessarily means that that it was used before the invention of the word.

Etymology (which is a science) would say otherwise.

I beg to disgaree. (Oh, and by the way, Etymology can't establish its conclusions with certainty either, so they're using informal logic, grin.)

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.

That's a shame. Maybe Satan will stand in for God. After all, he used to be God's chief angel, not?

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)

Heh. You're willing to do a lot to win a convert.

Story telling is a skill that can be acquired, I recommend it, along with speed reading.

I'll try, but I'm not sure that I will succeed.

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.

Thank you.

Not true since one day/ night? The sun will inevitably not rise as it will have gone out, gone novae, etc.

Of course, we're not talking about the end of the world, but about the near and foreseeable future. The chance would be 100%, not?

Actually, the formula would be flawed because it is not taking into account the constraint posed by the constitution.

That was exactly what I meant. You can make up anything, and claim after the fact that you were right. 99% chance that Bush would be elected? Well, 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 don't know. If you toss up a coin and get a head, does that mean that the chance was 100%?

I wish he was a true conservative… I wish I had the facts to know for sure.

Well, it's either Romney or Rudy. Fortunately for me, I like them both. :P

(Oh, and I don't think Reagan was a mythical 'true conservative' either.)

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.

How would you define 'informal logic'? I've seen you use the word 'logic' for both informal and formal logic, so I don't understand what you mean by it.

Thanks, this has been fun so far.

Thank YOU.