Criticize me, please

The BBQ Pit
41

This one surprised me.

I often point out in my discussions the bounds of logic (including different kinds of logic), and where logic is not applicable or is a discipline that is merely ancillary to some other, more pertinent discipline. I’ve often made the point that logic is merely one branch of philosophy, and that it does not apply as some sort of absolute law or penumbra underlying all of existence. Logic applies only in chains of implication.

Rules of logic, for example, do not govern the scientific method. In first order logic, A and Not A are contradictions. But in science, just because one theory is false does not mean that some other theory is true. I’ve recently used the examples of Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg to make this point. Newton’s work was not rendered false by Einstein, and Einstein’s work was not rendered false by Heisenberg. The reason for that is that those men dealt with matters that were not chains of implication.

Now, that is not to say that they did not employ logic in the course of their work — they did indeed employ logic each time they solved an equation or simplified a mathematical expression, for example. But science, like logic, is a branch of philosphy. It can prove nothing to be true, but only proves things to be false. It is based upon a different principle than logic. Logic is based on the principle of non-contradiction, but science is based on the principle of falsifiability.

Another example I’ve brought up is the futility of applying logic to subjective emotion and experience. A man can be both overweight AND knowledgable about the perils of obesity. Calling such a man “illogical” is misguided. It is so often the case that what a man knows and what he wills are two different things. Smoking is along those same lines.

With respect to my mentioning often the inability to prove one’s own existence, that is again an indictment of logic in a situation where logic does not apply. Such a proof is obviously a futile exercise in begging the question; therefore, logic fails to validate our existence, and well it should.

With respect to the issue of being unable to prove a negative, I only rebut it, so far as I know, when I encounter it. I don’t bring it up out of the blue, but I do quickly point out its absurdity — particularly when it has been invoked in an attempt to prove a point. That seems only right, especially here at Straight Dope.

Nevertheless, I have left the impression with you that I over-logicate, even when at least half my discussion of logic is to point out how irrelevant it is. I will have to examine how I can improve my expository skills. Thanks for the advice.

42

And as always, you fail to appreciate the distinction between the study of a thing and the thing itself.

Logic the field of study is a subset of philosophy. Logic the thing is the foundation of the universe.

And again you fail to understand the fundamental nature of science. Logically, proving something false IS proving something true. Science cannot truly do either, anyway. What it can do is make observations (ideally by experiment), compare those observations to the expected results predicted by theory, and generate hypotheses to account for the differences.

Newton’s work wasn’t falsified by Einstein – it was falsified by countless experiments and observations that were inconsistent with his theories’ predictions. Einstein’s work wasn’t falsified by Heisenberg – both theories are known to be incomplete, but each seems to work well in its own sphere.

And guess what? If A is true, the negation of A is false. But if A is true, that says nothing about the-things-that-aren’t-A.

The scientific method is founded on logic. You understand neither logic nor science.

And that, of course, is your greatest failing. You don’t comprehend even basic points in the fields you constantly make grand pronouncements about. You’re familiar enough with the terminology to use it, but you don’t understand its actual meaning.

You constantly present strawmen as opposing positions, then burn them down. For example: merely being overweight and aware of the perils of obesity does not make a person illogical. Consciously holding certain goals while taking actions that are incompatible with those goals is illogical. In many cases, people can claim to wish to preserve their health and lose weight while failing to take steps that would bring about those results and taking actions that risk their health and maintain their obesity. There is a contradiction between the espoused desires and actual behavior.

I suggest you purchase some good, comprehensive college textbooks on the subject of the philosophy of science, scientific methodology and practice, and applied logic. And don’t darken these boards again until you’ve read and understood them.

43

I only have the time to be general, but I find that you have very strong beliefs and you tend to hold them quite personally.

While you are generally rational this makes you immune to reason in these specific circumstances.

You may also tend to take yourself, your arguments, and your circumstances very seriously, and this does them detriment.

I’ll give you two examples.

There was a period of time when anybody claiming about any kind of injustice would have you step into a debate decrying the injustices you and your father have faced as Indians.

While this is nothing to be laughed at the frequency with which you brought it up did not do you service.

I also feel strongly about something. I was a burn victim, and it was probably the defining thing in my whole life. Fortunately I am mostly recovered and it was only my hands. I suffer no more than slight scarring and mild loss of dexterity. But, in my mind, it is the biggest and most important thing that ever happened to me as a person. The pain, the suffering the whole experience is imprinted indelibly on my psyche.

Because of this, I risk being a boor on the subject. I risk using it as a sledgehammer. I am afraid on occasion I have done both.

So, I try to watch it, and have a sense of humor about it.

I’d suggest trying to do the same with those things that are most important to you or most defining.

A second, example would be this thread. Lighten up, you’re not a cretin. It is not necessary to shred yourself.

44

That’s what we’re for.

45

**

I snipped your quote for points that I wanted to address for the sake of brevity. However, I do not want to misunderstand (or worse, misrepresent) what you have written. Please accept my apologies if this is the case.

I guess this is why I asked my question. My opinion is that it is a person’s choice to hold onto the pain of their past. From what I’ve read, you seem to be working toward a point in your life where these things don’t bother you.

I asked my question because it relates to what you can now do to help your community. It’s one thing to fight ignorance on a message board (and for that I am grateful), but you can go out and reclaim what has been lost as a result of what sounds like your painful past experiences.

You don’t have a need for society’s approval, and that’s great. But have you considered exploring your heritage to the extent that you can work more closely with your people? Have you thought about volunteering with Tribal youth? I have found much fulfillment doing so, and take a certain pride in knowing that I am helping future generations.

Besides, it’s way cheaper than therapy.
Be well.

46

I agree with almost everything TVAA said (well, to the extent that they are hypotheses rather than character analyses), as I agree with him in most threads.

That said, to be agreeing with TVAA is sort of scary :slight_smile:

47

You think that’s scary? Try being me. It’s like being locked in a small room with the personifications of ultimate cosmic forces and a mime.

48

I’m picturing Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Total Perspective Vortex, for some reason.

49

First, I want to say that I almost always enjoy watching you debate, Libertarian. It’s always an education, although sometimes it’s a bit too much of an education. You’ve clearly studied a lot about logic, which is great, but a lot of the time, when you start using it, what your saying passes over my head at a near-stratospheric height. Especially when you start in with the modal diagrams. Not many people, even educated and succesful people, have much of a grounding in formal logic. Maybe you already know that the person you’re talking to understands that stuff, but it’d be nice for us bystanders if you could put a bit more of a layman’s spin on it.

50

I’m sure you’re a smart person and all that but the impression you left me with is that you’re a complete asshole. I’m not trolling or fishing. You truly involved yourself in a thread, which judged me based on what another person thought I was saying about native Americans but wasn’t. I meant “Americans” in the truest sense of the word but your large brain couldn’t comprehend that and tried to make me look like a bigot.

I normally look up to people like you but you have no redeeming qualities other than your quick, sharp tounge (fingers).

Fuck you!

How’s that for criticism, asshole?

Unga bunga

51

Rooves, not for nothing but if the impression you got from Lib in that pit thread is sincere, you might want to reexamine it with a more level head than you seem to have right now. I will note, for my part, merely that if you believe Lib was the one who tried to make you look like a bigot, you’ve got the wrong acting agent and the wrong verb in the past tense. And an extra verb, for that matter.

I have a few comments, Lib, intended as not much more than observation:

  1. Related to IzzyR’s point. Perhaps you stand out in this regard as much because others do not usually employ logic in name (but surely in spirit:)), but there are very few people on this MB who will use as a point of evidence/proof of their post that there is a term in logic for it. It seems rather self-defining to do so (I can elaborate on this in more detail if you don’t understand/agree[:D]), IMO, and since there are often far more persuasive arguments (again, IMO) I think it somewhat discredits your argument.

  2. You’ve used more than once the phraseology “there is no [person/entity/etc] I [verb] more than [pronoun]” or “there is nobody who [verb] more than I do/did/have/etc”. Two examples that come to mind are “There was nobody more distraught/saddened by Matthew Shepard’s murder” and “There is nobody I respect more han he [matt_mcl].” I’ve thought since I did some thinking on the first example that it is your manner of saying, for example, “I have tremendous respect for matt_mcl” or “I was extremely desolate over Matthew Shepard’s murder.” But I wasn’t sure. So now I’m wondering if I’m right or if there’s some other possibility:)

  3. Related to #1, it seems to me that from time to time you rely too much upon logic … related to what has been said already in this thread about A and Not A being opposites, yet in the scientific theater “Not A” not necessarily being the opposite of A but an entity that simply isn’t A. It seems to me that sometimes (and I don’t remember any specific thread well enough to drag out a cite) you will use the rules of logic to build your argument but mistakenly use, for example, the equal-but-opposite nature of the Logical A!=Not A when it is inappropriate to do so. As such your argument fails, but you are unable to see it because you do not recognize the flaw.

I don’t know that not using Logic (Logic being the various terms and such, whereas logic is merely proper argumentation) is the answer, but it can get tiresome (for me, at least), to see an otherwise flowing and lovely paragraph and I can just sense “oh, man, Lib’s about to drag in another Logic term again”. It’s almost as though you have a particular way of phrasing things that begins … a sentence, maybe a paragraph before you actually bring it in. If I were a more intelligent person I’d be able to show you the stylistic differences.

And a suggestion now, if you plan to have another “ask the libertarian” or similar thread. Stipulate that the examples should be actual examples … no sentient, giant squid, for example;) Because as you said, the more you get into hypotheticals the more things get sidetracked and the more tired you get.

52

DJ

You and I have, as they say, come a long way baby. I can readily recall the days when our disrespect for one another fairly oozed from our posts. It took time, but eventually we got to where we are today: two men who respect one another as intellectual peers. Perhaps it was at first that we were so far apart that we entered discussions more or less pre-polarized. In any event, at times like these, I am grateful for the principle of entropy. What is past no longer exists and will almost certainly never exist again.

Your advice about not insulting people is excellent. It is something that I ought to consider, not because I label myself a Christian, but because my moral journey is a lesson in learning how to love. As you know, I define love as the facilitation of goodness. And it seems to me that holding other people — whom God certainly loves as much as He loves me — in contempt is the very obstruction of goodness. And that, as you know, is how I define sin.

Regarding brevity and clarity, I agree that I ought not to say more words than are necessary and that the words I choose ought to be clear. I’m still working on my expository skills. Sometimes, I feel like I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t. For example, in the paragraph above, I used the word love. Since I’m using the term in a particular sense, I feel obliged to explain that I mean the faciliation of goodness. Thus, if I do expound, I am verbose, but if I do not, then I am cryptic. I understand and acknowledge the criticism, but at this point, I don’t know yet what to do about it.

I will accept the criticism that I appear to be intellectually arrogant. In fact, it is probably the case that I sometimes contrive the appearance deliberately in order to construct the defensive shield that I mentioned before. This is surely something that I can learn to control, though it might take time. The key is in recognizing when I feel defensive and then taking steps to assure that I express my defense with good argument and not with contrived rhetoric.

Regarding the appearance of a martyr complex, that is one that I’ve heard before — but because the discrenment between an actual persecution and a mere perception of persecution is so subjective, it is nearly impossible for me to know which witch is which with respect to myself. Probably the solution to this is simply to dismiss any ad hominem or tu quoque as irrelevant to the argument, which is something I ought to be doing anyway.

------- Skip the portion below if you’re sick of the MOA -------

You raised, as an aside, an objection that the modern ontological argument proves merely the existence of necessary existence. Here is why that’s not the case, stated as briefly and clearly as I can: Only certain frames are reflexive, and it can be proved that NE exists in those. But there are schools of logic in which the truth of an axiom does not necessarily imply the truth of an implication that follows from it. The proof of NE differs from the proof of G in that the former proves NE in S5 — or necessary existence in a reflexive frame; whereas the latter proves G in A — or, God’s existence in actuality.

------- Skip the portion above if you’re sick of the MOA -------

Thanks again for all your advice. It was thoughtfully conceived and respectfully presented.

53

Scylla

It is good to hear from someone who has opposed so many of my arguments, but is responding here respectfully and in the manner requested. Yes, I do take myself and my arguments very seriously. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to alter my temperament. As a Melancholy, I find self-examination to be a necessary ritual for my own mental health. We who carry the world upon our shoulders would feel lost and naked were we to discard the weight. :wink:

54

Zhen’ka

Osdadv kanetsv. Wado. Witsatologi nihi.

55

Pun

Is the problem as you see it the fact that I actually cite rules of logic within arguments? Would it be progress if I can find a way to use logic without actually mentioning it per se? Or is it that you find the use of logic itself unhelpful in a debate?

Regarding your question about my phraseology, I’m aware that my rhetoric is imbued with deeply rooted old-style southern rococo. And I’m afraid it’s too late to change that about myself.

56

I think the problem is twofold:

One, you constantly drop the formal names of points you’re trying to make, which is pretentious and annoying.

Two, you have a disturbing tendency to use those concepts incorrectly.

57

Libertarian,

I wasn’t intending to argue my point - as I said, it was by request, for you to take or leave as you see fit. But I think I may have been misunderstood, (certainly by Iampunha) so I’ll take a gander at a clarification.

I understand that you bring up the inability to prove one’s own existence as “an indictment of logic in a situation where logic does not apply”. But this implies that the person you are disagreeing with was in fact using logic in this manner - an assumption that is not always correct. IOW, many times when people say “prove to me that God exists” they do not mean “prove in a formal logical sense that God exists”. Rather they simply mean “give me some compelling reason to believe that God exists”. Your counterpoint - that even one’s own existence cannot be proved in a logical sense - is invalid, because you can give compelling reasons to believe in your existence. It seems that your argument relies on reducing the arguments to one of two extremes - either formal logical proof on one hand or personal intuition and perception on the other, leaving out the broad middle of probability and likelihood.

Similarly, the argument about not being able to prove a negative. Here too, what people mean is not that under the rules of formal logic negatives cannot be proved. What they mean is in general it tends to be a lot harder to conclusively demonstrate negatives than to demonstrate positives, (for which reason the inability to demonstrate a negative is less of a counterargument than the inability to demonstrate a positive). This assumption itself is an intuitive one, and one that might be generally agreed upon, despite the inability to logically prove it. Here too, your focus on whether it can or cannot be “proved” assumes an appeal to formal logic that is just not there.

58

And more to the point, it’s not the case that negatives can’t be proved in formal logic. Lib is wrong on both counts.

59

I’ve (for the most part) only interacted with you once, in a long thread which concerned using a special kind of multi-universe logic to attempt to prove the existence of God. At the time, you (understandably) were worn out and didn’t have the energy to fully address my posts, which I felt were interesting and courteous.

(I haven’t been able to track down that thread…)

Anyhow, I’d definitely be interested in reading your responses to my arguments at some point…

60

Hi, Lib. :slight_smile:

If I had any criticismsms, I would say that you’re a little too in love with the ontological argument and that you overestimate the persuasive power of symbolic logic. Symbolic logic just looks like hieroglyphics to those who have had no background with it and maybe you could be more persuasive by spelling it out in plain English. Tell it to us like we’re four. It might still seem condescending but at least more people will be able to follow it.