# Criticism of logic **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 30, 2014, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043 "2014-10-30T18:58:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/21 "2014-11-01T16:20:53Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > Eschew arguments, embrace contradiction. > > In seriousness, look up the surrealist movement. It’s outright based on the idea that dream logic is “superior” to the logic of the waking world. It may be the case that nowadays we just see art, but many surrealists truly believed their works to primarily be works of philosophy and the art being a side effect. > > Embracing this philosophy will, unfortunately, not make you a rocket scientists nor president. Maybe president. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/22 "2014-11-04T04:07:24Z")
[The Feminist Critique [Repudiation] of Logic.](http://www.indiana.edu/~koertge/rfemlog.html) I am not sure if attacking logic as being something that is gendered (male), patriarchal, and a tool of oppression is still fashionable amongst feminists (or significant factions thereof), but it certainly was at one time. Here are some [more links on the subject from Google.](https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=feminist+critique+of+logic) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2014, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/23 "2014-11-04T04:19:23Z")
I’ve seen certain radfem circles say it, certainly, but I’ve also seen radfem circles say all heterosexual sex is rape so… No, it’s not exactly a common feminist critique. Edit: Though it is a legitimate problem that some people horrifically misuse and abuse formal boolean and first-order logic to come to absurd and occasionally bigoted conclusions that few real formally trained logicians would support. ---
**Author:** ![MaverocK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@MaverocK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaverocK)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/24 "2014-12-10T10:34:50Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Our OP has been so impressed by our demonstration of logical and argumentational skill that he/she has vanished from the thread. > > At least he/she isn’t a one-time poster. So there’s some hope of return. Actually, you are right. I am quite impressed by your demonstration and I am NOT a one-time poster. 🙂 > [@cmyk](#): > > Wait, I’m not sure I follow. Does the OP want to win arguments by attacking the whole idea and application of logic, or just the logic of whom he’s arguing with? I want both: (1) To win arguments by attacking the whole idea and application of logic and (2) the logic of whom I am arguing with. It seems to me, one of them implies the other one. If you attack the whole idea and application logic, you might be also attacking the logic of the person with whom you are arguing. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/25 "2014-12-10T10:42:39Z")
It is very difficult to win if you reject the scoring system. ---
**Author:** ![MaverocK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@MaverocK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaverocK)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/26 "2014-12-10T11:45:39Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > It is very difficult to win if you reject the scoring system. You liken the scoring system to logic. But, is this not false equivalency? > **[False equivalence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)** > > A false equivalence or false equivalency is an informal fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency. Colloquially, a false equivalence is often called "comparing apples and oranges." > This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equiva... ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/27 "2014-12-10T12:09:09Z")
Nope. An argument based on logical premises cannot be defeated by rejecting the tools of logic. Your (hypothetical) rebuttals would be seen to be absurdities and irrelevancies. Just as you cannot make a field goal in chess, you cannot “win” an argument by (whatever you think you are proposing to replace logical inferences). Caveat: This does not mean that you can make a person stop arguing with you by using nonsense, if that is your goal, but you will not persuade your opponent or any observers to support your side. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/28 "2014-12-10T12:11:33Z")
> [@MaverocK](#): > > I google’d it but couldn’t find anything except “criticism of pure reason”. > I’d like to make fun of or rather read the criticism/mockery of logic/sense. > How could one attack an argument formed by sense, logic, reason? > Do you know any research or essay on this? > How would you, as a SDMB user, criticize them? I know you are but what am I? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/29 "2014-12-10T14:45:08Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > Just as you cannot make a field goal in chess, you cannot “win” an argument by (whatever you think you are proposing to replace logical inferences). > > Caveat: This does not mean that you can make a person stop arguing with you by using nonsense, if that is your goal, but you will not persuade your opponent or any observers to support your side. You make a beautifully logical argument. I counter with a gun pointed at your head. Who has won? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/30 "2014-12-10T15:25:39Z")
> [@MaverocK](#): > > Actually, you are right. I am quite impressed by your demonstration and I am NOT a one-time poster. 🙂 > > I want both: (1) To win arguments by attacking the whole idea and application of logic and (2) the logic of whom I am arguing with. It seems to me, one of them implies the other one. If you attack the whole idea and application logic, you might be also attacking the logic of the person with whom you are arguing. 🙂 What you are talking about is not winning-it is walking away from the game and refusing to play. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/31 "2014-12-10T15:41:33Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > You make a beautifully logical argument. I counter with a gun pointed at your head. Who has won? Oh well, if we’re talking politics now. . . ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/32 "2014-12-10T15:49:56Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > You make a beautifully logical argument. I counter with a gun pointed at your head. Who has won? I have won the original argument, but you have started a new argument. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/33 "2014-12-10T16:23:52Z")
> [@MaverocK](#): > > When humans argue about something, they most usually form sentences, and sentences have to make sense. You cannot speak or write by re-positioning verb, object or subject. Otherwise you won’t be understood. Untrue. Word order is very important in Modern English because we’ve almost completely discarded the case system (the vestiges are the subject-object distinction in pronouns and a few archaic words like “methinks”) but languages exist or have existed in which the function of a word in a sentence (subject, direct object, indirect object, etc) is indicated by declination, and word order is very loose. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/34 "2014-12-10T16:35:09Z")
And of course english is not totally ossified. The dog bites the man and the man bites the dog are both perfectly sensible but consist of the same words in a slightly different order. You think so and think you so mean the same thing, albeit the latter at the expense of sounding like Yoda. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/35 "2014-12-10T16:45:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I have won the original argument, but you have started a new argument. LOL. It’s easy to win arguments if you declare the argument over before the other side can respond! ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/36 "2014-12-10T16:53:49Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > And of course english is not totally ossified. The dog bites the man and the man bites the dog are both perfectly sensible but consist of the same words in a slightly different order. You think so and think you so mean the same thing, albeit the latter at the expense of sounding like Yoda. I disagree that “think you so” means anything. It’s too vague. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/37 "2014-12-10T17:52:12Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > LOL. It’s easy to win arguments if you declare the argument over before the other side can respond! But the premise is that the presentation of the weapon _is_ the supposed response, and you just don’t bring a gun to a word fight. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/38 "2014-12-10T18:28:18Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I disagree that “think you so” means anything. It’s too vague. Right? Right! … right. RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT! (Tone of voice matters. Think you so? Think you so.) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/39 "2014-12-10T18:42:42Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But the premise is that the presentation of the weapon _is_ the supposed response, and you just don’t bring a gun to a word fight. Sez who? Where does that rule come from? Logic is a formal mathematical system that we use because it makes useful predictions about the unfolding of the universe. However, our belief in the utility of logic is experientially grounded. We cannot PROVE that reality always behaves logically. Only that it SEEMS to behave logically under normal conditions. Logic is like Newtonian mechanics. It’s a formal system that seems to explain everything, but we can’t be certain that it actually does. Perhaps in the future we will encounter situations that violate the rules of logic that will require us to formulate a new formal systems to account for. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043/40 "2014-12-10T19:30:22Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Sez who? Where does that rule come from? > > Logic is a formal mathematical system that we use because it makes useful predictions about the unfolding of the universe. However, our belief in the utility of logic is experientially grounded. We cannot PROVE that reality always behaves logically. Only that it SEEMS to behave logically under normal conditions. > > Logic is like Newtonian mechanics. It’s a formal system that seems to explain everything, but we can’t be certain that it actually does. Perhaps in the future we will encounter situations that violate the rules of logic that will require us to formulate a new formal systems to account for. When the water starts falling up, I’ll turn the drain spout upside down. In the meantime… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/criticism-of-logic/703043.md?page=1)